Section 302 (b) and 404 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 1601 Qatil Amad, dishonesty of property possessed by the deceased at the time of his death, the definition of evidence, in this case, the benefit of the prosecution of his evidence. No, the complainant had not charged anybody in the FIR, but on 12/13 days after the incident, both the accused were charged in their statement under Section 164, CRPC. And for this vile statement he had neither offered any plausible explanation nor any source of satisfaction for him, without such a descriptive explanation, such a descriptive statement would not have been sufficient to disclose the source of satisfaction. Its apparent value was lost in its presence and could not be relied upon. The magistrate who recorded the alleged confessional statement of the accused had essentially / completely failed to record the accused's confessional statement as illegal and withdrew; in the eyes of the law it was not a voluntary judicial confession. Could go And with no legal effect, the trial court did not prove that the identification of the suspects was not justified in relying on the recovery of the weapons, in this regard, the report of the Positive Forensic Science Laboratory in its entirety Was devised and planned. Which cannot be trusted, the prosecution had no benefit in recovering rifles, cartridges, and mobiles under the circumstances, because the prosecutor failed to prove through credible evidence that the prosecution had been able to establish the subject of the killings. The failure was beyond any reasonable doubt against the two accused
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
