The testimony of section 302 (b) Qatil-e-Amad evidence was the benefit of the doubt as both witnesses contradicted each other materially and the matter was reported on the occasion when both the witnesses explicitly stated that the deceased. The body was taken from the police station, which will cause serious suspicion on the report made on the spot, but no blood was found on the spot, although there were wounds that came out along the inner path and both lungs as well as the heart. Was also damaged and either of the two were hurt. When excessive bleeding was caused when no bleeding was found on the spot or at the designated location, the location of the incident, as claimed by the complainant, was not independent of the complainant. In addition to presenting a lawyer's advice to the State Counsel that substitution of one of the accused was a rare occurrence, there was no universal application principle as each case had its own facts and the facts had to be decided on which to establish. No testimony was presented for The fact of the matter is that in fact, the prosecution witness had recovered the pistol of the crime from the accused in his presence, along with the accused, all three were arrested on the day of the incident, which is usually when someone commits a crime. So that includes the death penalty. He will try to avoid his arrest, but in the present case the accused was found in his house, along with the weapon of crime, which also raised serious suspicion about the charge as well as against the accused. The pistol was not released from the case. Doubt, when he increased the benefit of doubt, his punishment and punishment were different
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
