Sections 2 (2 (b) and 4 i4 Qatim Um, voluntarily appreciating the evidence for causing the robbery, did not identify the accused at the time of the incident, although their characteristics to some extent. The FIR is mentioned by people who allegedly saw it - the incident whose names were listed in the FIR, but none other than the complainant came forward to support the prosecution's case. , The prosecution had to appear before a witness who was later presented, his testimony could be excluded because he was not presented. In his statement by the perpetrator, Syed's witness did not primarily appear in the investigation; his statement was full of contradictions and contradictions; the identification parade, which contained some inherent defects, was hardly an offense because of the defendant's conviction. By chance, the alleged retrieval of a pistol 30 bore on the indictment of the suspect, no conclusion, was the case for Inez's case, which was insufficient to base the conviction on the accused for unprovoked and criminal death.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
