The benefit of doubt in the appreciation of Section 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed evidence was not reported to the police at the time of the FIR mentioned in the FIR, which raised doubts about the fact of the prosecution's complaint. The trial court was different from the version that brought about the improvements made by the complaint during the amendments to the FIR, which were brought to the record during its investigation, and it appears that these reforms were accepted by Akular. To bring the account into line. Along with the medical evidence, the complainant, who was the nephew of the deceased, was a resident of various villages where the incident took place. The complainant was declared an opportunist as well as an interesting witness, the prosecution's other witness. Improved to justify his presence on the occasion The explanation offered by the witness for his presence at the relevant time of the incident was impossible as he was a resident of a different place NT village Syed witness also complained of both. Failed to prove his presence on the spot to witness the presence of the carrier and wow Other witnesses on the occasion related to the case also suspected, their testimony did not create confidence, the prosecutors failed to prove the purpose that the serologist on the scalp and hatchet recovered from the suspect was denied the blood. In the event that the recovery of weapons of crime cannot be relied upon, the accused is likely to be fooled by these articles. Nevertheless, a piece of evidence was merely of a helpful nature and since the molecular evidence had already been denied, there was no need for prosecution.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
