Section 230b (b) / Q 34 Law of Martyrs (of 1984 of ten), the benefit of the doubt in re-reviewing the clause is identified by the accused in the court by the High Court, the accused did not know the prosecution witnesses, Therefore, in such cases the identity of the accused was necessary but no such identification test was done. Only in the court the accused was not identified by a witness who did not lose weight but the Medical Officer found marks of adoption on the injured. Gone are the three entry wounds and the three exit wounds, all three of those entry wounds were found with tattoo marks. Za, such marks may be the time when it was fired from close range with firearms. Medical evidence did not confirm or confirm the 3-foot ocular evidence, which also raised reasonable doubt in the prosecutor's evidence Oko. The evidence was insufficient to convict the accused, honest investigations were not carried out, false corrections were made to include the accused and specially manipulated with evidence to strengthen the prosecution case so that the court Do not be convinced with the evidence of recovery of From the possession of the accused, the prosecution's case was suspicious and it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt, which was given to him and the accused was convicted and allowed to appeal.
