Section 2 302 (b) / Q 34 The noble, joint intention incident which was daylight, was reported to the police with no delay in which the accused was involved with the special role of injuring the victim, more than three In fact, these three witnesses, however, dismiss the facts. According to the motive, but neither in the presence of the complainant, nor in the presence of witnesses, did the defendant have any explicit dependence on the statements of the trio, on the day of the incident, on the dispute of the demand for money from the victim. Can be kept The witness was merely consciously corrected by the eyewitness to prove the truth of the material contradictions, and to justify his presence on the occasion, the witness complainant, who was the real brother of the deceased, and others The prosecution witnesses were residents of the same area and the incident took place in the same area, there was no exception for the presence of both witnesses. The spot complainant and eyewitnesses unanimously disclosed the method and method of the incident, although both witnesses were presented with evidence of inherent error, but during arguments on the defendant's offer. Neither such contradiction was identified nor any such weakness was found, both said, as the witnesses remained steadfast in their investigation of the area, adding that the evidence of the accused's role as well as the incident took place. Evidence of testimony, motivation, which can be safely believed, can be relied upon and the information disclosed by both Witnesses were also prosecuted for injuries sustained from Luzman, the doctor said, to confirm the injuries.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
