Sections 302 (b) / 324/148/149 of murder, attempted murder day, disturbance and moving of common object, but its background was not specified. In such cases, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused party was an aggressor. The incident was not that many people gathered at the scene after the incident so that the possibility of any vacancy could not be eliminated. Spot was shocked that despite enough shots to extinguish the fire, not a single blank would be recovered from the scene, presumably because neither was heavily fired, nor was the incident in the manner disclosed by the complainant. It was as if the prosecution's witnesses suffered injuries. Only on this occasion should his presence be identified and not his credibility and truth. Eyewitnesses did not identify any of the accused in the Act Commission. The question is who has the victim killed and who has injured other witnesses, it is not a site plan. The evidence and motions do not confirm the version of the prosecution charge for a crime as a member of the unlawful assembly was separate from the charge of committing an offender because the prosecution witnesses themselves fought the case independently. Had confessed, not only could the aggression of the accused party be considered true, but the question of the common object would arise. Does not arise when the situation will lead to a free fight between the parties, no one can be sure whether the accused was the starting party, or whether they exceeded their defense. As a single fireworks injury to the deceased a single fire
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
