Section 2 (2 (b) / Q 34) Qatiel Am, Joint Intent Evidence Testimony The benefit of the doubt was not mentioned at the time of the incident in the FIR. The FIR was mentioned in the FIR and the prosecution later introduced two eyewitnesses, one such witness was dismissed, the prosecution's case was based on the statement of the second witness. The two witnesses, who were related to the deceased, said their conduct was unnatural. They made no attempt to take the victim to the hospital to save his life and complained. The home of the defendant also did not come forward to inform about the incident and caused an unusual delay in filing the FIR and the silence of the eyewitnesses. The delay in recording the witness statement was fatal to the prosecution case and the statement of such witness was not credible. Otherwise, in the light of the lantern, the identity of the accused in the darkness of the night is generally considered to be evidence of a weak type. He was not safe to rely on it. The same evidence of single-eyed witnesses was not dependable, in cases where no evidence was available regarding the wristwatch and the gold ring snatching. There was no benefit to the alleged retrieval of the articles mentioned by the accused, the capture of the accused, the date of the arrest of the accused was inconsistent The possibility that the accused was arrested before the date.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
