Section 2 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed's important task of appreciating the evidence for which the prosecution's witnesses were located was through the investigating officer, in the FIR and before the trial court complainant and others. Was also not disclosed. Therefore, witnesses were witnesses to the incident, during the trial, the complainant made a significant improvement in the series of blows given to the accused with the intent to testify, according to a post-mortem report of the injured witness. The prosecution did not come forward to support the version and their prosecution was won by the accused, which gave rise to a negative interference in terms of Article 129 (g) of the 1984 law. Appeared before the court, he did not support the prosecution's case, three co-accused specifically charged that he had delivered the injured witness to a firearm and Danda had thrown the victim through an unclean verdict. Was acquitted, but no appeal was filed by the state or the complainant against their fate, therefore, very strong and independent cooperation was needed to maintain the conviction of the accused on the same evidence. , Which they lacked. No offense was cleared of the case, the prosecution of the forensic science lab report in the recovery of the pistol and the working order had no benefit, the FIR specifically alleges that the record was not made, the prosecution The proof of this was complete. There was only hunger and there was no pimple which the defendant had been acquitted to prevent.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
