Validating evidence in section 2 302 / at Q The benefit of the doubt minutes The delay of 45 minutes in filing the report did not adequately explain that the complainant was the sole witness to the incident without any confirmation from the apologetic source. Caution should be exercised at the time of diagnosis in the event that an independent person does not appear before the police to be acquitted against the accused, in spite of the fact that the accused, who rely on his statement to maintain his conviction, will be unsafe. Many people saw crime commissions in the market, no one from the locality testified to isolation in this case Submitted to confirm the evidence of the crime, in the circumstances, the location did not prove by any irrelevant source that on the occasion the complainant's presence was also suspected that the complainant was interested in the incident. Was a witness. On the one hand, he was on illegal affairs with the accused, and on the other hand, his son was interested in bringing the accused to the gallows after being killed and filed a false case against him. It would be unsafe to rely on evidence when the crime weapon was not recovered and seized, but the medical evidence did not support it. Complainant / Prosecutor's witness, who showed that he was either lying or was not present at the time of the incident Medical evidence would not link the accused to the crime commission nor the complaint Will contradict the statement of the recipient. Medical evidence and the accounts of the prosecution will make the prosecution suspicious, resulting in the murder
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
