Section 302 (b) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Sections 364 and 164 Benefit of the Testimony of Qutel Ahmed Evidence Suspicion by the magistrate The record of confession required was an unforeseen event and in which direct or circumstantial No persuasive evidence of trust was available. Can reasonably link the accused to the commission of the crime, except for the confessional statement of one of the accused, the court recorded the conviction on the basis of the confessional statements made under section 646464 of the three accused, the PC The questionnaire was not available where it could be submitted. Whether such questions or answers are recorded by the Magistrate. And if any questions were presented with the accused confessing, in the absence of answers to the questions and the answers, which were part of the confessional statement, what were the answers? And the confessional statement in nature must prove incomplete and weak. Whichever basis for safely convicting the accused could not be rationalized as part of the crime statement, he did not tolerate any time or date, which was not only an excuse in nature but also for the prosecution's testimony. The statement was also contradictory and the prosecution suppressed the material facts and the incident sank into mystery. It can be safely concluded at the location that it was either not a case of evidence or that the incident was not conducted in the manner as shown by the prosecution of the suspects. The suit failed to prove its case. The trial court set aside the charge to increase their suspicion and sentencing
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
