Sections 302 (b) / 324/148 and 149 of the coronary evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) of Qutel Amad, testimony of the forensic science laboratory report that two pistols recovered from the co-accused were under a working order, There was no benefit to the prosecution because the motive in the FIR was directly against the co-accused who was acquitted by the trial court and no appeal was made against him. A lawsuit was filed either in the state or by the complaining party. In the circumstances, the accused could not be treated as a disputed piece of evidence, and one person was injured in the incident and the complainant was not present. As stated that the person was received. Injury to his chest by a convicted partner But the whole record was silent about this most important witness. And even though his media's legal report was not available on file, the counsel for the defendants for the Coun's counsel was appropriate, Article 129 (g) of the conviction testimony should be dragged against the prosecution, the prosecution failed. ? In order to prove his case against the accused and the ocular account was not in accordance with the medical evidence, the prosecutor had to prove his case beyond any doubt. And if any doubts arose from the circumstances of this case, then the benefit had to go to the prosecution case, which was full of doubts, the accused deserved its benefit, not as a matter of grace. As a matter of fact, the benefit of the doubt, conviction and punishment that was filed by the trial court against the accused and they were acquitted of their charge and released, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
