The benefit of the doubt in section 2 (b (b) Qatil-e-Amad evidence) could not be seen because the incident was not witnessed by anyone even though the complainant was not an eyewitness to the incident. No delay was reported, but much was charged without nomination. The complainant's position was first imposed on the commission of the crime after giving an additional statement for four days. Such an allegation was made by the complainant. The information received was received from another person, who did not witness the incident, nor was the accused seen by him. In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution had to set up its case for other reasons, such as the evidence of the circumstances, the confession of the crime, the retrieval of the criminal weapons. It was of little importance because the suspect was not identified during the investigation as the required confessions in this case were made by the AC's delay in recording the confessional statements regarding the delay of four days, though not fatal, but since the accused Stayed in illegal custody for four days with no reason given, it was strong speculation that The accused was detained along with Malala. Non-compliance of required procedures in recording of confession statement reduced credibility of confessional statement, facts were at least verified with moderate statement. A statement in the confessional statement was withdrawn; the conviction of the accused cannot be proved on this basis. The strongest prosecutor in the case had disclosed that he was allegedly revealed to the police by the accused
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
