Section 2 (2 (b) / Q 34), the appreciation of the evidence with a common intention was immediately lodged in this case, which rejected the possibility of retreat and deliberation and the holiness of the truth. According to the ocular account presented by the deceased complainant and the prosecution witnesses, the accused were found in the 'dagger' and 'diaper' below the ear, below the ear, and on the right and left side. The deceased Syed's witnesses were examined at length, but their testimony could not be corrupted during cross-examination. The incident at the ER was also mentioned at the time of death and the eyewitness testimony that the doctor said was confirmed by the deceased's post-mortem medical evidence further confirms the ocular account regarding the weapons used in the incident. The doctor was cross-examined by the defense lawyer, but no person could be brought to the record with the accused, although he was closely related to the victim, though no witnesses were associated with the victim. There was no basis to directly exclude his evidence. If the evidence of the relevant witness was reliable and convincing, then the evidence could be safely relied on to convict the accused, the prosecution's witnesses long cross-examined, but their Evidence cannot be dispersed by a defense lawyer. The evidence of these witnesses was natural, straightforward, and credible, which did not help the prosecution's recovery, the "digger" and the "detector" prosecution case.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
