Section 2 (2 (b) / Q 34), the testimony of the joint intention to define the evidence after the delay of more than five hours to the police and such delay was not properly described by the prosecution. The accused, the accused and the real brother of each other, while the co-accused was the friend of the accused, both of the prosecution witnesses agreed that they were guilty of abusing her husband / accused. The victim had reached the house upon receipt of the complaint regarding the story. Advance through the account through the Accular Account, did not appeal because of the prosecution. The plea of defense was never dismissed, and at the same time, the Investigation Officer was given a bad sentence, which was attributed to the convicted accused. On the same set of evidence, the trial court acquitted one of the three accused and was not challenged by the prosecution, which shows that the prosecution was satisfied with the findings of the trial court. The prosecution's case in this case was two versions because the two defendants' positions contradicted each other. According to the prosecution's own version, the accused was empty-handed and had not taken any overt act nor recovered anything from the accused, nor was there any authentic evidence in the report of Franzek. Documentary evidence exists. In my view, the science laboratory will not necessarily attract the provision of a provision attractor, the PPC prosecution has failed to prove its case, it is said
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
