Section 2 302 (b) Testimony of Qatil-e-Amad evidence The benefit of the doubt was not proved by the presence of eyewitnesses in the presence of the motive. The suspected co-accused confessed to the crime. It was from the family site, the suspects and the eyewitnesses were very close to the victim at the time of the brawl, and despite the fact that the accused was carrying knives, neither the complainant nor the witnesses had a single scratch. According to the prosecution case, many people were present at the time of the incident and tried to separate the two parties, however the prosecution Failed to produce a single witness to the public, while the accused were four. The complaining party consists of five people, so the complaining party should have been in a better position to take power. The ccused party was suspicious of the presence of eyewitnesses on such occasions, therefore, they were not reliable witnesses. No testimony was presented to prove the fact that there was a dispute between the two parties prior to the incident; the co-accused had confessed before the court to the magistrate, in which he admitted that he had allegedly committed the crime. And the names of the accused accused of having any hand in the commission of the crime registered by the trial court Was not released and the accused were acquitted of the charges, the appeal was settled accordingly.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
