Section 5 Explosion Proof of possessing or possessing explosives The benefit of the doubt was the scope prosecution relied solely on the recovery witness and the complainant's statement, except that the investigating officer had allegedly recovered the articles from the vehicle. Neither was it sealed, nor was it sent to the Franzic and Ballistic Expert at any other time to know if the detonators and fuses allegedly recovered from the vehicles owned by the suspect were in the works. If I were or would not otherwise send the ballistic expert to the allegedly exported detonators, I would be skeptical. Had done And the story of the prosecution by the employees of the police station and the scrutiny of the investigation, neglecting the rules of inquiry, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the accused, and for that purpose, it was always necessary to be numerous. Should. In order to create suspicion, it would be beneficial for the accused to commit the crime through the circumstances and the trial was held by the court and the accused was acquitted of the charge while raising the benefit of the doubt. Was released.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
