Section 2 (b) b Qatil Ahmed appreciated the evidence established by the prosecution, did not appeal the argument, and otherwise could not prove that the victim was shot at one point and fell. Elsewhere, the record prosecution version did not confirm that the victim had told the complainant and other prosecutor's witnesses that he had been shot by the accused at the hospital, but that he had been beaten by a doctor who said Medical evidence did not support the distance of the suspects immediately after the death of the deceased, and the victim was unknown at the time of the incident. The suspect was named, the suspect was not named, the unknown suspects could never be traced, no injuries were reported in the Inquisitor's report, no date was mentioned by the investigating officer and no sign was obtained by the persons who were found. There were one, though their names were told, such a reduction was allowed to conclude with justification that the incident was not witnessed by the prosecution witnesses, with Padlock and a hammer recovered, in this case. The pistol was recovered after an unidentified gunshot wound was unknown. There was every possibility that 8 days after the arrest of the accused, a vacancy was formed after the arrest of the accused, and in the positive report of the forensic science laboratory the appropriate dates were obtained in the prosecution case for obtaining the report of the forensic science laboratory. There were. In these circumstances, the burden of proof would be on litigation, and even the failure of his plea could not be held responsible for the commission of the crime.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
