Articles 302 (b) / 149 and 324/49 were excellent, evidence of appreciation of evidence was not filed immediately FIR was delayed and the possibility of investigation was always present in the case of FIR delay. The witnesses were not only close to the victim, but admitted that the complaining party was inappropriate with the accusing party. Therefore, the aforesaid witnesses need independent support, in which the prosecution's witnesses at the trial improved their statements regarding the identification of the accused in the torch. In addition to the moonlight on the night of the incident, but the flames were never presented to the Inquirer Officer, the identity of the accused was very difficult in the moonlight that night because the evidence identified in the torch light was minor that night when such a torch was not taken. Was. Medical evidence in police custody was not in accordance with ocular testimony, but one man with a blind eye did not have the truth sealed. The dishonest reforms made by the prosecution witnesses on the material aspect of the case related to the identification of the accused, made them untrustworthy, no crime was acquitted on the spot, there was no benefit to the gun prosecutor recovered from the accused. The gun was reported to have been working in the report by Franz Science Laboratory, with no results, when two lead pills were suspected to have been found after the shooting at the wooden door of the house twenty-five days. , Especially when the same fianc? was not sent. The purpose of comparing the recovered gun with the science lab has not been proven on record, according to which it is alleged that
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
