Section 2 (2 (b) Qatlam praised the evidence) Within minutes, the complainant filed a report and within 50 minutes of the incident, the case was registered, from the site plan and post-mortem examination by the doctor. The benefits provided by the recovery witness did not result, as the investigating officer was a good witness, as was the delay in sending evidence to another institution for recovery and positive report from the laboratory. The sole cause of the incident cannot be ruled out - a report by the Weapons Expert, which registered the hospital's accident ward. The report had no opportunity to mention the presence of vacancies on the spot or to investigate under Section 1 was, CRPC and Chapter XXX, Rule 35 of the Police Rules., 1934 FIR no. Mentioning the presence of vacancies in the name or inquiry report of the accused or eyewitnesses was not required by law, although it was not charged to the court before the FIR, but the accused did not enter into force under section 2342. The same statement was made in the statement, that the CCP's weakness or lack of motive or failure to prove it could not adversely affect the prosecution's case if it reasonably suspected If you can. The co-accused was acquitted, though no role was attributed to him except on the spot, and he was acquitted, giving him the benefit of the doubt, immediately after the FIR's murder charge The source proved against the accused, the account presented by the prosecution witnesses, the arrest of the accused immediately after the incident, the verification of medical evidence and the opportunity
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
