Section 2302 (b) Qatil Amad's testimony of the evidence presented by the prosecution was related to the interest and the interest was ocular evidence was doubtful and no evidence was available for proof of interest available through irrelevant source. There was no recovery effect from the suspects when Hans was present. In order to cultivate the complainant's lands then, the complainant did not have to look after the irrigation water course, especially when the weather was at the time of the incident, the complainant and his witness said. They went to irrigation care The water course did not appeal to the cautious mind. Such factors raised suspicion about ocular evidence The evidence of the circumstantial evidence was also of interest and related because the prosecution's witness The complainant's horse was recovered from the possession of the ant accused and there was no aggression and delay for the delay of ten months and such. The bill did not provide a clarification explaining how the property was sent for chemical inspection, raising doubts about the alleged alleged recovery, as interested witnesses tried to get more people involved in the commission of the crime. There was no evidence that the accused had shared a common intention to kill the deceased, and that the accused's alleged intent to commit facilitated murder to the co-accused was a question of fact, to be discovered Allegations of facts and conduct of the accused, aggravated assault, use of a weapon, prior to Putting the number of people who walk with any major role for individuals convicted in the current issue
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
