Sections 302 (b) and 148 of the convicted brother-in-law of riotous evidence armed with deadly weapons, while the latter was performing wudoo in a disputed piece of land, and that the accused and his accomplice were the complainant and The prosecutor's testimony was that the accused admitted that the prosecutor had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's legitimate medical report proved that her death was due to firearms. The prosecution's witnesses included the victim's brother and a relative, but only because of their relationship with the victim, they were declared interesting witnesses. Could not be given because there was no direct enmity with the accused, despite the lengthy scrutiny the defense failed to produce any advertisement in the truth of the witnesses, except that some unusual contradictions occurred, Therefore, the question of misidentification did not arise, the recovery of the weapons of offense was used in the facts and circumstances of the case. Sue was not fatal to the case. The suspect was absconding for two months after the incident at a location located fifty (50) kilometers from the police station, which in fact described a four-hour delay in filing the report, the prosecutor successfully Proved the case. According to the prosecution's own admission, the day before the incident, after claiming ownership of the disputed land and preventing the disputant from working on the disputed land, the victim caused anger to the accused who fired the accused. Despite having the opportunity to repeat the sentence, only one shot was fired, but the circumstances of the dispute were maintained, but his death sentence was lifted.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
