In Articles 2 (2 (b) and Q 34 of the case), the appreciation of the evidence with the joint intention of reducing the circumstances, the reduction of the FIR, the possibility of being prompt, the replacement of the accused and the possibility of consulting others. All material details of the incident were clearly made clear in the FIR that the eyewitnesses were examined at length, but cross-examined. His evidence could not be corroborated during the proceedings - he confirmed each other in all material aspects of the case and his evidence was quite natural, reliable. Affected by the trust, which was fully supported by the medical evidence, the complainant was the real brother of the victim and he was the only accused.The victim was accused of being highly inconsistent with the complainant. The original will release the culprits and alternatively put the accused in such cases, there was no pending litigation between the parties on the dispute wall, and there was no hostility before. The parties were charged by the prosecution as a motive, not proving that they were not considering the possibility of preparation of crime sites before sending to the laboratory, the defendant's request for defense was nothing but denied by the prosecution. Had proven their case against. Evidence of eyewitness testimony by medical witnesses that the prosecutor had, proved his case against the accused beyond the scope of any doubt. O'Leary, court denied recovery of gun and two crime cartridges, did not recover on the suspect's identification.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
