Sections 242424/2 45 Pro / Cri 34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) The trial court hearing the appeal of a guilty verdict and domestic plea against the background of the former FIR filed between the parties. I was Four of the accused charged in the FIR were prosecutors, according to prosecution evidence, the injured and the deceased witnesses were sitting near each other on the bedside and were given the same location in the site plan when the four suspects were shooting and the complaining party. While sitting close to each other, he did not appeal the logic that the other eyewitnesses would avoid being injured, on the back of the place where the wounded and the eyewitnesses were present, in a row of fire rooms. Were present, but only two spent bullets were recovered and no other trace of bullets or spent bullets was included in the site plan. Why eat was alleged that the incident was inside the house, so it can not be said that someone had taken it. No mention of the tube rod was found in the FIR and the site plan observation indicated that the sign where the tube rod was illuminated was written from different pens, which led to an estimate. It was just that such an increase was made. The suspect was identified at the relevant time as the identity of the accused was deliberately added because there was no source of identification, it was not possible for any witness of the prosecution to identify the culprits, The witness confessed that during the course of the investigation, another person was found responsible, but the complaining party did not charge him, Syed
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
