Section 2 302 (b) Appreciating the evidence of Qatil Amad was straightforward and confident in presenting the ocular incident, which did not suspect in the presence of witnesses at the time of the incident that the parties knew each other; The witnesses do not have. The direct animosity with the accused, their relationship with the deceased, could not be declared an interesting witness because the Ocular evidence was not prone to any material contradiction, contradiction or inherent weakness and was likely to be materially compatible with other evidence. In which the FIR was filed immediately. The specific role of the accused eliminated the possibility of consideration or consultation by the complainant in his investigation and statement regarding his oath under Section 342 and 340 (2), CR PC. Did not deny, but disagreed with the manner of the incident. The prosecution's version was more likely than a negative version of the defense version The firearms expert is purely a piece of evidence, not enough to ruin the ocular testimony by medical evidence and motif verification, and for the prosecution's version. There was no fatalities and the culprits' conviction was upheld.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
