The names of the complainant and the four witnesses were not mentioned in the inquiry report of the value of the section 302 (b) Qatil-e-Amad evidence, which showed that the police had received F IR was issued. Really were not present at the relevant time when the incident occurred at 7.30pm on a winter night, but no source of light was shown in the site plan as well as in some way. According to the FIR, the victim was called and the unknown boy was taken to the spot, police never tracked the boy. And he could not be traced during the entire incident, and was not presented to the police, neither during the investigation, nor during the trial, in the FIR before the trial court. The prosecution also withheld important evidence to prove it. At one point a shopkeeper, who had an incident in front of the shop, had compromised with the victim's parents and waived them off, but the victim's widow could not find the compromise. It was because of the contradiction of the material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence could not support the motivated account, more than a year after the charges of Kalashnikov's recovery from the accused. There was an incident that was not exclusively reported to the Franz Science Laboratory suspect's report on crime and vacancy. Acquisition was invasive. Recovery of equity, in the circumstances, was not helpful to the prosecution.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
