The testimony of the appellant's appellant on the fate of the evidence of section 302/148/149 Criminal Code (V 1898), section 417 (2A), mentioned the presence of one witness, the other two witnesses, contradicting each other on material points. At that time, the prosecution witness stated at the time of the incident that he was not aware of what had happened between the victim and the accused before the incident because he was not present because another prosecution witness His presence was not mentioned at the time of the incident when the complainant or any other witness was filed more than 24 hours later and the complainant's The delay was offered, neither reasonable nor comprehensible, suggesting that the time was spent in deliberation and consultation, and that the incident was seen as missing. Witnesses were established. He was closely linked with the victim and the victim, and contradicted his medical evidence that the empty shells allegedly seized by the complainant were not found to be married to Kalashnikov and allegedly recovered. By order of two counts of innocence was committed, the court of competent jurisdiction approved that the finding of evil could not be reversed, disturbed and disturbed, except when the decision of evil was misleading, arbitrary, startling. Artificial and jurisdictional error found, misreading or misreading of evidence. Even if a second view on the definition of evidence was possible, the defendant's unanimous opinion should be preferred that the decision by the trial court to be acquitted, as unthinkable, requires no intervention.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
