Articles 302 (b) and 459 The definition of evidence found in the morning and in the enclosure The benefit of the doubt was that the victim's husband, being a police constable, was aware of the legal customs and the incident was in his house. The report to the police after a delay of five days, which was submitted by the complainant for such a delay in the FIR, that he remained busy in treating his injured wife till his death was neither comprehensible nor Nor did he care about filing an FIR with regard to the convict. The presence of four eyewitnesses on the occasion of the incident also denied the fact that they had taken the injured person to the hospital. Five days after the recovery of four crime accessible from an open space, it was suspected that the suspect was arrested and the rifle recovered. After B. the vacancies of the crime were deposited in the Franzic Science Laboratory. Therefore, the positive report of the laboratory did not work well for the prosecutor's son, who had the contention of the accused and the case resulted in the murder of the victim, neither was presented as a witness nor At the same time it was examined, the prosecution had to take action in view of Article 129 (g) of the testimony of the law, the 1984 associate was acquitted by the trial court and against his verdict. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, though the deceased was alive for five days after the incident, but no information has been received about the doctor who made the statement. Unable s, benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused and accordingly it was bad.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
