AURANGZEB versus THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL
Section 302 (a) The definition of Qatil-i-Aad evidence was not delayed in filing the FIR. The location of the incident and the names of the witnesses were clearly stated in the FIR. Can identify the accused. It is clearly stated that the accused fired on the suspected site plan, he also clearly identified the place where the accused was standing when he opened fire on the oblique ocular version but was nominated in the FIR. The accused was acquitted and was included in the commission. Due to the prevailing situation in the country by the courts in this country, the principles of crime and Maximus False were not practiced in the omnibus and the courts were obliged to remove the grain from hunger but the evidence was not accepted as some of the accused must. Should not be rejected. Among other matters, the independent and natural witnesses of the incident made impressive statements of faith and the accused failed to recover any blood-stained land from the place to record any details of their enmity. The fattening of the dead body may be due to the fact that otherwise, such a fact would not end the prosecution's story which was otherwise proved by the ocular version. When compelling enough convincing and convincing evidence, defense evidence did not confirm the conviction, the conviction and conviction of the accused were maintained in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2010
