Sections 4 324 and 7 i7f (ii) The only incident of effective firing was the indictment of evidence, attempting to commit any person as Ahad. The incident was a widespread incident and both the accused and the complainant were cousins, no false identification was made. The complainant's version was prepared by medical evidence. The complainant's blood-stained trousers were seized and his blood protected from the crime scene, sent to the forensic science lab, the report revealed that it was a human blood and the same group. Has supported all these pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the injured complainant to the ocular account. The defense lawyer believes that as a prosecution witness did not support the prosecution's case, the defendant was entitled to acquittal, the prosecutor's witness acknowledged that the site plan was prepared. The single witness on his identification by the investigating officer was sufficient to prove the culprit. If his testimony was true, his credibility was verified and confirmed by other probable evidence. In the present case, the complainant himself was an eyewitness who had sealed wounds on his person, which could not be expected to replace the accused, who was also his cousin's brother, the medical evidence proving injuries. The witness statement was sufficient to record the sentence against the offender. The complainant gave a straightforward account of the incidents. He was subjected to a cross-examination investigation, but there was little to the defense, the prosecution successfully brought the defendant guilty of the FIR, though filed under Section 3, PP, PPC Was done
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
