Section 2 302 / at34 Complainant of the testimony of Qatil Amad, the mother of the deceased, who was the sole witness at the time of the incident, who was the sole witness to any of the details given by the complainant in the FIR. The confirmation is in his statement. Nothing was established before the trial court about his motive for making false accusations. The complainant himself reported the matter and shifted his son to the hospital in critical condition. His cross-examination did not mention anything that suggests he was not present on the spot. Other pieces of circumstantial evidence were legally corroborated, including the recovery of medical reports and vacancies in which the quality of the evidence was to be calculated and not the quantity of the testimony of only one witness, if that was true. Was enough to record the sentence. The statement of the sole witness stated that the contradictions reported by the accused's lawyer were trivial and regrettable, despite long scrutiny, no direct or indirect enmity or guilt by eyewitnesses against the accused was stated. It is alleged that the eyewitness submitted it directly to the trial court. His statement was found to be true and there was nothing against him in the record that he was allegedly encouraged to describe as a witness, in the circumstances, was credible and correctly believed. It was believed that the reliance of the Franzic Science Laboratory by the defense court would be lost. Significance because there was available molecular evidence that supported the prosecution of the accused. And so, no need to hurt
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
