Section 302 (b) appreciation of the evidence, the reduction in the presence of the complainant at the relevant time with the convict, could not be doubted, who lived near the incident and immediately filed an FIR at the police station. Was. Regarding the two parties, whose presence, on the occasion, the complainant testified, the recovery of the firearms used in the crime without the involvement of the police personnel was not defective, because the disclosure and the point of view Was recovered on. The accused were not lodged under the meaning of the provisions of Article 40, Law E-Testimony, 1984, and Section 103, CRPC; in such cases, the slightest contradiction did not harm its intrinsic value. The witnesses testified against each other on all material details. Experts found the crime scene vacant by the expert; they found that the firearm was fired. The suspect was not denied motivation for the incident. Medical evidence further confirmed the ocular testimony. The version was neither natural nor possibly both of the accused were sentenced and one of the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment. Both the accused committed the crime. The joint intention and their participation in the crime was equal and the court of unreasonable trial sentenced one accused to death and sentenced the other accused to life imprisonment, which reduced him to 60 years of age. Under the circumstances, however, this was not correct, according to the sentence of absolute imprisonment, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to the accused. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
