Section 302/324/34/427 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 417 (2A) Qtl e amd, damages the amount of fifty rupees due to general intention, misconduct against which the appeal against the definition of fate The involvement of the defendants (defendants) in the commission of the benefit offense was dubious, and the presence of the complainant (appellant) at the scene of the incident was an incredible complaint when the story was improved while the witness was present. The firearms were attacked from all sides in connection with their alleged role of driving on various accused, but the complainant took the stand in his report and statement before the court. It was as if he had taken refuge. The space between the front and rear seats of the vehicle and no damage was caused by the fact that the complainant was difficult to believe in escaping without any reason as the given vehicle was fired indiscriminately. The vehicle was not manufactured with evidence, nor was it inspected by a motor vehicle inspector nor was a photo taken on the record to prove and substantiate the complainant's position. For the vehicle's production, was an important factor, the prosecution's story cannot be believed. The complainant claimed to have identified the occupants in the vehicle's headlights, while records show that both sides of the road were bushes and trees, so people in the bushes at night could not identify the vehicle's headlight. The scheme revealed that the suspects were evacuated from nearby shrubs from the sites assigned to the site under the site plan and, in the circumstances, suspected
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
