Section 2 (b) b Qatiel Ahmed, while appreciating the evidence, sentenced the trial court, the accused failed to consider some obvious contradictions and contradictions in the evidence; The presence of the witness was not possible, but one witness quoted by the prosecutor, who was the complainant, the deceased's husband, while the other was his son, throughout the prosecution's evidence, it is not stated anywhere. The complainant allegedly snatched on the spot, was missing from the scene and did the hatchet ever be turned over to the police for chemical examination During the trial, this important decision was also ignored and neglected, when the complainant was snatched away on the spot while delivering the verdict, six days after the date of the incident. The investigating officer also failed to investigate the fact of the snatching of the hatchery, which was clearly mentioned in the FIR, and the 70-year-old man (accused) was charged with He sustained injuries consistently for five minutes with no resistance in the presence of the victim's son and husband; the prosecutor was unsuccessful with reasonable suspicion. The contradictions presented in the prosecution's testimony and the prosecution's testimony were not equipped with firearms, which could have removed the witnesses, and the riots could have been considered natural enough to the husband and The son allows both attackers to be killed. His presence as wife and mother silent spectators at their respective times,
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
