In section 2 ((b) and at e am, Qatil Adh, the four accused were acquitted by the trial court and their fate was not apprehended either by the state or by the complainant before the High Court. Was. The ultimate question was whether the evidence, which was denied, could be sued against the accused's lawyer if the complaint was made against the accompanying accomplice and the state could be prosecuted against the accused. The case was banned from his colleague on the basis of his motives, recovery of arms. The crime and medical evidence, which according to him independently corroborated the prosecution's version of the accused motive, were not only charged with the accused, but also recovered the accompanying accused from the instance of the accused. On which the chemical stains the blood. The inspector, but no serologist reported on the origin of the blood, attributed one of the injuries to the deceased person and the injury to one of the injured witness's witnesses, the accused and all three were acquitted. Thus, there was no possibility of independent sovereignty, in which the role of the accused was assigned. The co-accused and his case were not related to his case The accused was acquitted in Iftar Hussain and another in 2004 SCMR 1185. Sarfaraz alias CPA and 2 others v. State 2000 SCMR 1758; Syed Ali Bupari v. Nabaran Molla and others PLD 1962 SC 502; Taib Khan and another v. State PLD 1970 SC 13; Baca v. State 1977 SCMR 150 ; Khairo and another v. State 1981 SCMR 1136; Ziaullah v. State of 1993 SCMR 155; Ghulam Alexander vs. Mamraz
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
