Section 324/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A), the appellant's suspicion of committing a crime against evil was not assigned to the defendant / defendant in any special way to cause harm to the beneficiaries and the injured. had gone. The purpose of the incident, as alleged by the complainant, was not supported by the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, although this offense was not necessary, but was once motivated by the prosecution. , Then it had to prove to be hostile, in the circumstances, without any plausible explanation, the prosecution could be prosecuted for the fabrication of the material witnesses. The secret of how and under what circumstances it was concealed was kept by the defense officers, keeping the material facts secret. After the initial investigation, an FIR was filed, with no power. The whole truth was not stated in the advertisement and they pressed for some material facts to be brought to the record as to the witnesses recorded during the inquiry. If the statements and statements of the defense witness are taken into consideration, it will not terminate the breach of their duty to prove the defendant's guilt beyond that. A reasonable suspicion, which the prosecutor relied on in the case was not reliably excluded in this case, even if the defense version was not taken into consideration, the prosecution still remained beyond the reasonable doubt. Had failed to prove his case against. And the benefit of the doubt arising in this case was rightfully extended by the trial court to the accused, under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
