Section 2302 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of the year 444), Section Q 44 Qatil Ahmed reviewed the evidence, the full consensus among the four witnesses regarding the time, place and location mentioned above in relation to these points. No contradiction was found between. There was no enmity between the witness complainant and the accused, and none of the witnesses suggested hostility to the accused on the basis of which it can be said that the complainant had any enmity with the accused in the incident. There was a massacre one day. During the cross-examination none of the prosecution's witnesses were advised that the complainant had given false evidence and that the complainant had not seen the incident and the complainant was also present at the place of presence with other witnesses. The presence was not disputed. This version of the complainant that five bullets were fired by the accused, which led to the case of the prosecution witnesses who had been acquitted of the state and also received the postmortem report from the prosecution witness even though the complainant was a relative. , But there was no basis for mere dismissal of the evidence of the prosecution's witness, unless his enmity with the accused was established. There was a common man, but he was a frustrated and hardened criminal, as he first killed the deceased and a few days later he recovered the father of the complainant / accused in the presence of prosecution witnesses. And his recovery was in full swing. The prosecution's case in which the gunshot wound did not bring about the injury was confirmed, confirming the evidence of the post-mortem report and the doctor's statement. Witness
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2010
