Section 302/324/109/148/149 Laws on the Martyrdom (10 of 1984), Article 129 (G) of the Counter-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Qtymul Amil, attempt to commit murder and terrorism Except for the definition of evidence, the remaining injured persons were deeply related to the complainant's family, but were not presented during the trial and were released because unnecessary Syed witnesses could not be called unnecessary when injured persons. Relations of the person mentioned in the complainant's statement, were injured. The testimony of their witnesses was of great importance and should have been presented because of such a situation the court, in accordance with the jurisdiction, sought legal action under Article 129 (g) of the Law Evidence, 1984. Has led to the dismissal. The accused and the injured persons and especially the prosecution were against the witness, then why not any of the accused, including the accused, tried to take the life of the prosecution witness. In the absence of a motive or motive, the prosecution could not be prosecuted, but in the present case the alleged motive cannot be ignored / ignored, as it directly affected the presence of the prosecution witness. In his court statement, the accused specifically stated that the site plan shows that a dagger sheath has been recovered, which in turn makes it appear as if the prosecution has taken its own course against the accused. Failed to establish case The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court was set aside and they were acquitted of the charges laid against them and they were released.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
