Definition of Section 2302 (b) of a convicted Udm evidence which proved the presence of a witness who was injured on his witness, however, sealing the firearm on his person was not equivalent to confirming the authenticity of his testimony and There was no evidence of authenticity and authenticity of his testimony. In view of the circumstances and other evidence of the case submitted by the Investigating Officer, such testimony was to be considered; all the witnesses were fully aware of the type of weapon and against an accused. It was alleged that he was armed. The prosecution witnesses were injured when the rifle and rifle were fired, according to the prosecution, a Kalashnikov rifle was recovered three months late, and six days after the arrest of the accused, the weapons recovered. Later it was not shown that the weapon was sealed on the spot, no forensic report was made regarding the working condition of the weapon. During the trial, the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in accordance with the rules laid down on the same evidence. The accused were acquitted on the same evidence, while the accused were sentenced without giving proper reasons, even though the accused was less and less. To some extent, litigation was a case in point. In the case of the accomplices, who were sentenced to trial and sentenced by the trial court after the trial, they were acquitted on suspicion and taken away from the charge.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
