Section 2 302 (b) / Q 34 Qatil-e-Am, Joint Intent Evidence Testimony The trial court claimed to have been an eyewitness to an accused based on the identification parade and Kalashnikov's recovery. In this case, two unidentified persons were charged without mentioning their age, color, characteristics and height, etc., but it was only said that they could identify them in the identity parade. The parade was held late, involved paramedics, persons other than the accused and asked the complainant to identify the accused. Such exercise was repeated three times and for the purpose of identification six persons were repeated. The bar was mixed with the accused. In connection with Kalashnikov's alleged retrieval from the established practice and law, as well as my positive report, the prosecution did not have any benefit when the recovery was disclosed in another case against the accused in which he alleged that Kalashnikov. If such a delay was dispatched with sufficient delay without any appreciable explanation, such delay would be doubtful. The accused person was accused of the truth of the prosecution evidence, even though the site plan entries were ignored, which is not a significant piece of evidence, yet in the FIR without explaining the plaintiffs' appearance, Their suspicion was raised if, in the absence of any strong evidence, the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not agree with the safeguarding administration of justice to maintain the conviction and punishment of the accused's unauthorized contradictions, And the matter will be deepened. ????
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
