Definitions of Sections 9 (c) and 29 drug trafficking evidence. The suspect was in the driving seat of the alleged drug-carrying vehicle and was driving the same vehicle at the time of the incident, the date, time and arrest of the accused. During the cross-examination, there was no question that both the prosecution witnesses, Created an account, did not depart from his first version and fully supported the prosecution's story, saying that the witnesses had fully and consistently, consistently and successfully passed the cross examination. There was no material contradiction. The minor contradictions identified by their evidence, which were alleged by the accused's lawyer, were not serious in nature, and they could never be considered sufficient to warrant a trial, or recovery. To make it suspicious that it has been said that the witnesses belong to the anti-drug force, it cannot be considered a good ground to refute their statements. The inconclusive and cohesive evidence, even though it was alleged, created defenses. But he failed to prove that he did not know about drugs from the vehicle, Under section 342 and 340 (2), the party accused the BJP had said. There were material contradictions in his statement appealing to the intelligent mind, which belied the story of the accused witnesses presented by the accused, the letters narrated by the accused and the spiritual story did not go hand in hand with the accused's lines. There was a story of a bull and a cock. The story narrated by the prosecution's witnesses against it is natural, true, and convincing
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
