Section 2 (b) b Qatil Ahmed appreciated the evidence - all the prosecution's witnesses were mutual, and the defendant was closed as well. It was not enough to deny his evidence by all the witnesses. And the defense failed to interfere with their authenticity, saying the witnesses were residents of the same village and their presence at any time and place of their presence, to any extent. Serious reasons could not be doubted, neither question could be misidentified, nor could any alternative be found to prove that the witnesses had any material contradictions or contradictions. D was not found, but he was in material possibilities with other evidence, especially medical evidence supporting the recovery of criminal weapons. The ocular account, in addition to the furnace, the suspect's possession and firearms expert. In addition to the report, with the help of the prosecution's two witnesses, the prosecution also relied on the final testimony presented by one witness, the accused was immediately designated with the specific role of firing in the listed FIR. ? It was unreliable that the complainant would falsely accuse the accused and allow the real culprits to be freed from the firearms. The ocular evidence presented by the prosecution's witnesses was further confirmed, the prosecutor said. Against his case proved beyond doubt. The trial court has not been able to make any illegal identification in the search of fact recorded, which could be convinced that they were against the evidence presented on the record, leading to the trial. At the trial court
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
