Section 2 (b (b) / Q 34), Complaint Intention Evidence Appreciation Sentencing, Benefits of Doubts Complainant / widow states that her husband went to stop the wagon for his children to go to school She was following along with her children. The time to be in the FIR with her children was exactly what people usually send their children to school at the location of the event. The presence of the widow of the deceased was very natural in the circumstances, the testimony of the other prosecutor was also a minor difference in the same street under Section 161, CRPC and its statement in the witness box exactly. Neglected, the presence said that the two witnesses were natural and that there was no reason for them to be lied to against the accused, that the injuries attributed to all the accused were fully supported by the prosecution witnesses, a defense version was established. Was not understandable, the FIR immediately registered witnesses to recover the weapons of the crime, although his cousins were E-killed, but he had no enmity with the accused's vacant posts and the pistol was delayed by Franzek. The science laboratory was sent. And that is why the laboratory report was not convinced by the laboratory's trial court report that it was merely a controversial piece of evidence and, even if it was excluded, a strong account combined with medical evidence, Was enough to prove. The defendants were given the benefit of the doubt by the trial court to properly acquit the accomplices because they did not cause any injury, the injuries attributable to both the accused, through medical evidence.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
