Articles 2 (2 (b) and Q 34) define the delay in filing a joint intention FIR, explaining the case by the complainant in the FIR, as well as the testimony of the trial court's complainant and prosecutor. The statement was also issued in front of him. His statements about the ocular account; and the test of successful scrutiny, both said that although the deceased had a close relative, he did not accuse him of any animosity. It was said that the first witnesses against the accused parties were known to each other, the mistaken identity of the real culprits will not be questioned, as this incident The incident took place before sunset, the complainant would not take compensation for the original culprit, who had killed his deceased son; both witnesses had established their presence on the spot, complaining by the complainant. Not to mention the three fire shots, and explaining that his statement had three fire shots fired before the court, would hardly affect the merits of this case, Was general on all material points of the calculation, at trial, in the trial, the court correctly believed that the account of the incident was the prosecution. There was no dispute between the ocular account and the medical evidence by the trial court that the court had properly examined the material available on the record and the trial court had sentenced the accused to death, there was no need to consider the appeal. Was done
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
