The prosecution's testimony, based on the circumstantial evidence, was based on the testimony of the defendants, as defined in sections 302 (b) and 109 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), section 164 Q Qatil-e-Aadam, the prosecution's witness claimed. The bar had seen the victim. The victim's Chuck resident, neither did he clearly state his presence in the area at the relevant date and time, and Syed's witness made his statement to the investigating officer 20 days after the incident. The testimony of the indefinite delay, citing no probable cause, was not substantiated by the testimony of any other prosecutor and was not motivated by trust with no intrinsic and inherent value, as well as any seriousness of the prosecution's testimony. In the absence of them, the sole statement on the offense of extra-judicial confession by the accused, not reliable. And such incredible evidence was wholly inadequate to prove the extrajudicial plea of extra j. As an internal confession, in connection with the judicial confession allegedly made by the accused, the magistrate filed the section. Before admitting his statement under 1 under under, the CCP did not raise any specific question as to whether there was any pressure to make a confessional statement or there was a material risk. In the absence of the aforementioned question, the magistrate's voluntary nature of the alleged confession of the accused before the magistrate was very doubtful and the statement made under section 164 could not be safely relied upon, according to the CCC Sessions Court. Instructions could be recorded. It is not even a voluntary statement
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
