Section 2 302 (b) Defining the Evidence of Nature The benefit of the doubt was clearly stated by the FIR, that it was an unknown person who was murdered, even in the investigative report, the prosecution's story was the same, but the accused Was enforced by the Supplemental Statement. The widow's widow previously reported that it was an unknown person who had killed her husband, but later stated that she later found out that the unidentified person was an accused in the trial court, Section 121212. The lawsuit is filed under , The CCP in which the complainant's statement was recorded and even in that statement the complainant did not name the evidence of the accused presented by the deceased's widow as the prosecutor's witness and the complainant's Lost its important value and was not impressed by the other two witnesses stated that they saw the accused when he was carrying Kalashnikov in his hand. The accused has nothing to do with the crime listed in the IDF Kalashnikov and the alleged vacancies for the alleged crime, for comparison The narcotics were not sent to the laboratory, but the prosecution failed to prove the accused, was supporting medical evidence and a defendant's conviction, and no person could be prosecuted based on the fact that the accused was prosecuted at any time. Failure to prove his case, he was fugitive, only the accused's prosecution had no benefit, the prosecutor was obliged to prove his case beyond any doubt. And the burden can never be changed, if the accused is guilty
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
