Section 222 (b) /, 34, 77a (i) / & 34 and hurt 337 l (?) / hurt 34 Qatil MMD, The matter of appreciation of evidence is sufficient without any conscious or deliberate delay to the police. Eyewitnesses were told the witnesses were present on the spot, as they suffered injuries at the hands of the accused and they were examined in the light of day that the incident took place in the light of day and the parties knew each other. , Was out of place to replace the suspect's false identity or the real culprit. The relationship between the eyewitnesses and the defendant in question does not rule out ocular testimony, which is strongly supported by other supporting evidence, facts and circumstances, witnesses have explained the incident and the mechanism of the incident. The allegations in the IR, the weapons used in the incident, the role assigned to each accused and the location of the injuries sustained by them, and the collateral testimony provided by them are permanent, reliable, reliable and dependable affirmative defenses. The plea was made by the accused to save the skin, which was false and untrue. Rewarding the medical evidence and the recovery of the Section 103 of the ocular account was not enough help, CCP recovery action had no significant impact on this. The prosecution's case, since no one in the public wants to voluntarily join the prosecution, has, therefore, proven its case that the complainant had sustained injuries sustained with the accused during the incident. The free fight without a trial was abrupt, with both parties suffering injuries. So PPCK
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
