The provisions of Sections 302 (b), 324 and 34 Qutel-e-Azam, the attempt to commit the murder, the appreciation of the joint intention evidence, had the benefit of doubt when there was complete darkness in the area when it was allegedly presented by the complainant. came. And the testimony of the other prosecutors, who were close relatives of the deceased, should be looked at carefully and carefully and carefully judged by the court that the complainant filed after considerable delay, Is made after initial investigation, consultation and consideration. The women were reportedly inside the house, but none of them had witnessed the incident, none of the neighbors reported the incident, after the incident took place. The entity was introduced, which was strongly disputed by the investigating officer. Record that the weapons and ammunition recovered on the indictment were, in fact, owned and possessed by both Cary's witnesses in the commission of the crime as to the material aspects of the case. Conflicts were found with the weapons of crime, the light source, the style and the manner of the attack. The witnesses were not found to be trustworthy and reliable and could not be believed that the prosecutor had filed the case. The argument fails to prove that the prosecution suppressed the material facts and that the incident was mysteriously reduced, and it can be concluded that either it is not evidence, or that the prosecutor did not. The prosecution suggested it did not act like this. Any doubts
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
