Articles 2?b (b) and 9e9 Qatil Ahmed and the property being disputed, as is listed in the FIR. His statement conflicted with the medical evidence as well as the Franzic Science Laboratory, the crime was about the number of stomachs and arms, and his statement contradicted the FIR on eating and drinking. The nature of the defense witness, who had a deep connection with the deceased, as well as his wife, who denied the involvement of the accused altogether, saying that the accused's death was done by an unknown person but by the accused. In this case the witness's place and truth were missing, contradictions existed in the medical evidence and ocular evidence, which led to the suspicion that the accused involved in the trial had been acquitted in the previous case. After being told that he was bad. The final accused was not liable to be convicted on the same evidence and in the same role of trial against both the accused was full of contradictions, many doubts were raised and this was a double event. The trial court was not justified in convicting and convicting the offender, and the accused was convicted and acquitted on his charge and fixed. freedom
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
