Sections 302, 148 and 149 of Qutel-e-Azam, a riot with deadly weapons, the value of evidence lodged against a joint object by a member of the Illegal Assembly doubt The benefit of the doubt is the doubt that the FIR was due to the trauma. I cannot name the accused. Specifically, the 8-hour delay in filing the FIR was not convinced of the trauma, if the complainant and witnesses had identified the actual culprit at the time of the incident when he designated it in the FIR Yes, witnesses were not present on the evidence at the scene, the witnesses cannot be trusted because they have made dishonest improvements by stating the availability of the electric bulb which they quit mentioning in the FIR. Had failed to prove the motive where the prosecution had set its motive but was not proven, the prosecution, nor the accused, The consequences will be. l The defendants strongly denied the nomination of the accused in the closing statement on the same day, the prosecution's failure to present a doctor's opinion, the ability to record the statement and the recovery of the hatchet without blood stains. There were doubts about joining. The benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused in the commission of the crime, the appeal was accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
