Section 2302 (b) The value of doubtful evidence of Qutel-Amad evidence was 6 to 24 hours between the ocular account and the medical evidence given by the doctor on death and post-mortem, which meant that the event could happen at any time. Nor did the complainant at the time claim that the doctor also mentioned in the post-mortem report that there was a half-hour between injury and death, while witnesses said that the deceased did not show any injuries on the spot. Has not happened and the incident did not take place at the time shown in the FIR, nor has the procedure laid down by the prosecution witnesses Ruff was inappropriate with the suspects but was also related to the victim and the complainant also had reasons to falsely implicate the accused. Needed a curation and an open source that was not coming from any independent source because this event was a major event. No one was involved in the investigation from the market and the area, nor was any crime recovered. No prosecution or weapons was recovered from the accused. The prosecutor could not, without a doubt, prove his case against the accused. There were many dents in the story under which the trial court sentenced and the accused was acquitted. Under the circumstances, a charge appeal was allowed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
