Section 2 (2 (b) / Q 34) Qatil-e-Amal, The Joint Intention Evidence Definition The benefit of the doubt was not available on the witness record of the incident and it was a blind murder and the case was not even seen for the last time. The vehicle was already in police custody. No identification was made to identify the parts of the vehicles identified under the law, which were required in those circumstances before the accused was already in police custody in another case. The recovery prosecution was only linked to the testimony of the Investigation Officer, who was not, and the witnesses and their evidence did not prove from the other circumstances of the case that It was alleged that he did not commit the crime of murder and there was no sufficient evidence of guilt against him. The entire case was adjudicated on circumstantial evidence, which was not fully proved. The circumstances of the case were broken at several stages during the incident. The confessional statement of the accused was a result of coercion and was not voluntary, as he was in police custody and was questioned with violence. The confessional statement was withdrawn and his Was not listed under. The law, being jointly recorded when both the accused were brought in and the statements of articles presented to them together, the examiner's cross and the cross-examination of the accused, at any point, had no bearing on the fact that the victim was killed. He was taken to the spot where his statement was made, under which the prosecution's case looked highly suspect. The benefit of the doubt is to prove beyond any doubt that the accused has an extremely unrelated connection to the crime where there was a contradiction in the evidence of the prosecutor.
