Sections 2 30c (c) and 7v7f (v) Qatil Amad, which Hashima praised for proof. Along with the lack of patience, time, place and location, it was acknowledged in the presence of the accused that the bricks found at the scene of the incident were painted by him. Parties to each other, who revealed that this is not a default and meditation event, but rather a moment of thought. And the accused party had no intention of committing the murderer. The victim had a free fight. After that, the parties saw conflicts between the contents of the FIR and medical evidence as well as statements of the prosecution witnesses. had gone. Both witnesses improved their prescriptions, despite the dispute between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries, the place of injury, (head), remained the same as the prosecutor sustained the alleged injuries. And during the incident, a woman, who had demonstrated her severity and ill will, was accused of recovering arms about two months and nine days after the incident, which has no credibility in the eyes of the law. Was. Since no person could hold the weapon for so long to recover the use of evidence as evidence to prove the crime against him, the recovery witness, who was closely related to the complainant and the victim, failed. Set the purpose of his presence at the time of the accused's disclosure; his testimony, in the circumstances, over a prolonged interval, could not be relied upon by the prosecution allegedly, Mott confessed and proved that the accused Sentenced to life imprisonment
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
