Section 417 Criminal Code, (XLV of 1860), 5 302 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Signature Act (VII of 1974), Section 44 Kattal appealed against the acquittal. Direct evidence was not available. The case and the prosecution case were withheld on circumstantial evidence. If the case was based on mere circumstantial evidence, then it was necessary to prove that the three witnesses did not state anything in their statements that could be ascertained. That the accused intended to kill. The deceased prosecution, in the circumstances, failed to prove the motive for the trial on the basis of the motive evidence in the case, the recovery of the criminal weapons was of paramount importance, the restitution memos were not placed before the prosecution witness and Neither his signature has been identified on the recovery memo, said the witness did not tell the Department HO about the recovery of the crime, which allegedly recovered the crime weapon, prepared the recovery memo. , But he did not identify the witnesses' signature on the recovery memo, nor did he indicate that he had made it. Ti is obtained in the presence of witnesses in criminal weapon / double barrel gun was accessible to ordinary people who had recovered from a forest clearing. It cannot be said of the public place that, in the circumstances, the recovery of the weapons in the special possession of the accused was suspected and falsely recovered from the weapons of crime along with the eviction of the crime, it was not proved in the circumstances. And the excess could not be relied upon. The judicial confession was not beyond doubt
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2010
