Section 2302 / Cri 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A), the appeal of a superior, joint intention against the verification of evidence, the complainant's interest in the victim's daughter-in-law, was an interesting witness to his testimony. There was a need for independent cooperation, which was lacking in this case, and more than five hours of unreasonable delay in filing an FIR was not done in the manner and manner in which it was reported by the complainant. The evidence of the two witnesses was not worth it because it was not in accordance with the ocular account provided by the complainant, saying that the witnesses gave the complainant Contradicting the material details, a prosecution witness filed his statement under section 161, CRPC, 10 days after the incident, which in itself was sufficient to create doubt. Evidence from this has yielded Kalashnikov's vacancies, which were not sent to the firearms specialist to ascertain whether they were or not. Such a softening by the prosecutor badly affected the complainant's version. What is it. The complainant alleges that the incident was the result of a previous bloodbath between the parties, called a moving double-edged weapon; alternatives or false opportunities for real criminals could not be ruled out for recording the accused's conviction. The plaintiff cannot be the basis for the plaintiff's conviction, when the legal evidence and the contradictory evidence in the trial evidence did not have the distinction of affecting millions and millions. Any illegal interference or weakness found in this case was not identified in the lower court's faulty searches so that it interfered.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
