The attempt to compel section 307 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Sanctions Law Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), section 25 evidence, was delayed by six hours in the filing of the FIR, which was explained, It was not fatal. In the prosecution case, the accused failed to prove any hostility or illicit desire against the prosecution's witnesses for which he was involved and was falsely executed, causing injuries to the firearm, It will not be related to how nature. Firearms were used No contradictions were found on the material points, all the prosecution witnesses explicitly designated the accused while strengthening the statements of the prosecution witnesses by assigning him a special role. And the presence of witnesses was objectionable, and despite lengthy scrutiny, the defense failed to tarnish its credibility, making all statements of eye-witnesses as trustworthy and genuine contradictions / contradictions. Come, which was identified by the accused's lawyer as a minor, Can be ignored in the presence of direct evidence, Ocular testimony of all relevant circumstances, reliable and reliable was an impressive firearm. Injury was not disputed, the injury set was the same as mentioned in the FIR, non-cooperation. Based on this, the entire evidence of the prosecution cannot be set aside, because its confirmation was only a rule of caution, not a rule. If the law finds eyewitness testimony reliable and credible, then hardly anyone can find the privilege.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
