Section 302 (b) / 324/34 murder and attempt to value evidence The only witness to the incident was the actual brother of the incident at 0045 hours, i.e., at the location of the incident at midnight, by the Investigating Officer's Defense. During the evacuation of the places of the accused and recovery of blood stained land, the complainant was established and there was no evidence that the incident was advanced on the occasion that there were two types of rifles. The blank and the forensic science laboratory report was in the same regard as the time between death and post-mortem The post-mortem report shows that the incident According to the time of the indictment as alleged by the complainant, the time of the incident from the medical evidence was set up and the report was lodged within a reasonable time, while Syd was the husband of the complainant and the deceased's real paternal uncle. The co-accused was his son, there was no reason to falsely implicate such close relatives in the murder case, and it was unbelievable that the complainant would replace the close relatives on the charge of murdering his perpetrator. Even accusing real criminals of being a substitute for actual criminals was an unusual event. It is alleged that the men who had identified the accused were three cells in the torch light, which was submitted to the Investigation Officer. It was natural for the complainant to complain that the account was not controlled by the contradiction of the meadow legal report. After the incident, the fugitive's prosecution also fueled the possibility of criminal arms being recovered, evidence of the prosecution's testimony,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
