Article 2 (2) and at e am Qutil Adham, the prosecutor tried to explain the evidence, the prosecution had proved the motive of the FIR against the father of the accused, the victim's father, which created a wrong opportunity. In the case of four days of extraordinary delay in filing an FIR, the eyewitness testified that the complainant was not present at the time of the incident and that the evidence was not credible. Was a natural and independent witness to the incident, the accused was clearly involved in making his role in hurting the deceased and he was under investigation. He demonstrated consistency on each of the material points and said that the evidence of the testimony is from medical evidence and that the affidavit confirmed that all the injuries to the firearm occurred on his leg. In his prepared medical report, The victim was described as life-threatening, died four months after the incident, and remained conscious during that time, but the investigating officer did not record his death statement, the victim's post The autopsy could not be performed because of the complainant's efforts. Therefore the deceased cannot be confirmed, so no offense under section 22 under, the extraordinary delinquent offense for five years against the accused was also a controversial piece of evidence, under which section 2302 ( B), the PPC was to prove the accused guilty. As a result, he was set aside and instead was convicted under Section 324, PPC and sentenced to 10 years RI, under the circumstances, section 382B, CR PC penalties and With benefit
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
