Section 2302 (b) Qatil Im rested fully on the case to benefit from suspicion of testimony, the father of the missing child complained in the FIR against the complainant only and his two surviving accused. Which are statements of the prosecution's witnesses. Fifteen days after the incident when the police saw the child in the companion's courtyard, it was recorded by the police, if it was the last time their main witness informed the complainant about this important and material information. He must have arrived with him at the police station, but he did not, who badly reflected on his credibility complaint and the two witnesses reportedly delayed reporting the matter to the police by 15 days. Failed to show that there was no credible evidence on record to show that in this case it was discovered that the complainant had filed The suspect was a child, as no export was presented by the prosecution in this regard. The medical report did not reveal the age of the bones. A case was registered after the discovery of such bones, after which There was some evidence that could not be relied upon, which was only supportive in nature so the recovery of the last-wearing ones could not link the missing baby clothes to the accused, since no one in the FIR There was no mention of the clothes from where the accused allegedly threw himself into the canal and his two bad co-accused were not worth the money. This is because the prosecution had not saved any body accused the canal body's extra judicial confession that witnesses had seen a drop in the Nahr his Serb
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
