Article 2 (b (b) / ?88 / ? e QThil's conviction of proof of evidence, no delay in the purpose of the FIR by the complaining party was reduced, it appears that the prosecution The story is not valid and so it was not proved by the prosecution. Ocular testimony was not only internationally consistent, but was also supported by medical evidence, during the cross-examination of the prosecution's version. I did not find any major error, only two could not consider the evidence of the witnesses - they were related to the deceased - and only to deny their evidence from the relationship. There was no scope. The testimony of two witnesses testifying to be natural, did not involve any dishonest improvement, can be believed that no crime was recovered on the spot, the alleged 8mm rifle was recovered from the accused. The one to be done was in working order and the same result was presented by the forensic science laboratory report when it was silent when the last fire shot was made from its barrel when its alleged weapon of ammunition was recovered. Medical evidence was thrown out of consideration, due to unnecessary, according to the ocular account and post-mortem. At the time, a deformed metal piece was extracted from the corporation, which, under the circumstances, corroborated the testimony of the witness and was believed to have proved the prosecution's case against the accused. Without a doubt, the trial court sentenced the accused to death, however, for these reasons it could not be sustained because of previous deep enmity between the parties. That is the same fire
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
