Section 2 (b (b) / Q 34) Qatel-e-Amal, No one has seen the benefit of the doubt as to the evidence of the joint intention, despite the fact that the complaint of the incident was at a speed of 200 from the complainant's house. The incident was reported by local children, but the investigating officer of these children was not investigated or brought to court, the complainant did not disclose in his first report. That had the characteristics and physical structure of the attackers, it was revealed by these children that they did not see the attackers, they did not even reveal them. What was wrong, the complainant's presence in the house at the relevant time was also suspicious, registering the report with a delay of 4 hours and 5 minutes, further reinforcing the suspicion that the complainant was not at home at the time of the incident. The behavior of the suspect was also suspicious and his presence on the spot was suspicious, while others were related to another village.Why and why it was said that the witness was present at or near the scene of the incident. There was another question that was not answered in the evidence of the prosecution; the statements of the witnesses could not be relied on in the circumstances, especially when there were reports. Allegedly delayed for up to four hours The witness did not know the person personally The identity parade could not be held, could not be relied on weak, dull and tainted evidence and to record the conviction of a felony if found guilty. But they were processed. Evidence of retrieving reliable and reliable evidence, the victim's post-mortem and site plan were serious in nature,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
