Section 302/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2) Qatil Ahmed initially named the accused in a special leave to appeal against the FIR's denial by the real son of the complainant. There was no mention of the petitioner, after which, on the basis of three recent evidence, he was involved in the case through his private complaint on the basis of the last complaint of murder of his son and allegedly by him. As the additional court acknowledged, the complainant himself was not a witness to the incident and had a statement. On the basis of the hearing only, after the prosecution's witnesses came to know of it, the evidence last seen was brought to the record only as a result of the effect that the accused was found near the scene of the alleged incident. The victim was not seen in the company of the accused. The extra-judicial confession offense, allegedly by the accused, was astonishing why they contacted the prosecution's witness in connection with the conviction. The perpetrator when he was not charged in the FIR filed by the original brother of the deceased trial court while discussing the apparent value of the said evidence, concluded that the allegation in the private complaint This was not enough to confirm. The motive was not set on record and medical evidence in isolation was not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. The scope of interference in the appeal against Brett was very narrow and limited, since the acquittal had double the benefit of the accused. Not because of The prosecution was able to present a case, under which the trial court found evidence on the record.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
