Section 2 302 (b) / Q 34 Qatil-i-Aam, The definition of evidence The benefit of the doubt, as stated by the complainant, was based on the evidence of the hearing; both of the prosecution witnesses were not residents of the area where the incident occurred. came. Took place, but was located 2/2 3km from the scene, witnesses said, adding that they identified the suspects at a distance of 10km (about fifty feet). The direct torch light was not presented to the police officer at the time of the spot inspection but was presented to the investigating officer four days after the incident, with no explanation for the delay, with the help of dark night. The identity of the suspects was about fifty to fifty feet away from the torch-light, without any doubt at the time the unnatural suspects were carrying no deadly weapons when the complaining party saw the accused strangling, but the victim. Instead of trying to recover or subdue the suspects, the suspects fled the scene. It is possible that an accused, who was an old man of seventy-seven years of age, would be able to escape in the presence of the prosecution witnesses, who were twenty-eight years old and thirty-eight years old, respectively. During the physical remand, there was no witness to the occupation of the accused, which happened in the dark of night, on suspicion the suspect was trapped by the complaining party as the body of the victim was found near his house. ? The prosecution failed to prove its case against the suspects, beyond the shadows of doubt, conviction and punishment that were given to one, putting doubts aside.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
