The testimony of the prosecution's face on the testimony of Section 2 302 (b) of Qatil-ud-e-Aid evidence raised many doubts and even the presence of witnesses at the time of the incident became suspicious. It may be assumed that the incident was committed in the presence of the two brothers and the mother of the deceased, but they showed no resistance nor did they attempt to control any of the accused nor the accused was the accused. Attempted to save from the clutches of. The criminal story presented by the prosecutor was difficult to pursue, unnatural, and difficult to rely on, contrary to the nature of natural human behavior, in which case any independent and unwanted witnesses came forward to support the evidence of the circumstances. Did not come The case once again made the mystery a mysterious complaint and the deceased's two brothers, who were eyewitnesses to the incident, were extremely high. Highly interested witnesses and under the law's statement should be carefully considered. And statements of highly interested witnesses were suspected of his presence after a preliminary investigation by police material contradictions. Because of this, the matter became suspicious, then only the reclamation of the vacant or blood-stained land could not be the basis of punishment in any way, if in the absence of any further direct, circumstantial or serious evidence, Cannot be considered as a mere indictment of the accused. Such evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Such evidence can only be used as a piece of evidence and cannot be substituted for substantive evidence.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
