Article 2 302 and Q 34 Qatil Oma, the confession of evidence The suspect in the FIR was not charged in connection with the tracker dogs was revealed to the person who brought the sniffer dogs to the spot, He could not find the tracker dog handler. The local police tracker was brought the following day after a spot inspection by the dog's investigating officer, yet the dogs were not reliably checked, as the dog's dependence was not denied, It would be unfair to say that the trail was not stale and not contaminated with various fragrances and it would not be possible to prosecute the accused, only on the basis that the tracker dogs tried to prosecute the defendant at the residence / duck. Was. The circumstances were proven by the prosecution, but these circumstances were not established by the prosecution, and they were insufficient to form a complete chain, indicating that the defendant was last seen by the offender. After three days of deliberations and the last seen evidence could not be based on the conviction of the accused, the recovery of blood-stained weapons did not help to prosecute them. The DNA test, which was not performed from the reported laboratory, was not sent to the laboratory for analysis and expert reports, and cannot be made on the basis of conviction in the death penalty case. , Especially when it was not a case of harassment prosecution, full of material contradictions, the benefit of the doubt extended to the accused, the prosecution of the conviction and punishment passed by the trial court against the accused.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
