The deceased died from his house on the morning of 6 8 2003 due to the disappearance of the provisions of Sections 302 (b) and 201 and morning, but no report on the incident was made till 1030, 7 8 2003. For hours, Nash was not shown to anyone as an eyewitness until recovery, stating that the complainant's FIR behavior showed that a preliminary investigation, recovery, consultation between the police and the complainant. And after the discussion, the report was filed and there was no eyewitness to the incident. The only evidence to testify against the accused was that on his identification, the accused recovered the alleged weapon of Syed's cow. Was gone - bounce human was not stained with human blood which could not be declared. As a weapon of crime, no one saw the circumstances picking up in the hands of the accused. There is nothing on the record that the cattle shed was exclusively owned. Nor was the accused present, no legal aid was provided in this case, and no uncertainty existed. From the time of the disappearance, the accused will not prove the charge against the accused himself and in the absence of a collateral account and strong circumstances, mere fugitives cannot be construed as evidence or pro-proof. Under the same allegation and the motivation of the crime, the accused was acquitted in the case under section C65PC, CCPC, because the prosecution relied on the affidavit to prove contradictory chains of circumstantial evidence. Failed to present evidence
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
