Section 417 of the Prohibition Code (XLV of 1860), section 324/34, appeals against the principles of acquittal from prison, found in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses who indicated that they were either not speaking the truth or the incident. Didn't work. As it was revealed by the prosecution that there were contradictions regarding the identity of the accused at the time of the incident and the presence of the public on the occasion and it was suggested that the prosecution witnesses were not present on the spot and he had made statements of those incidents. Did not see Injured witnesses were also not properly recorded. The site was planned based on the identification of a person who was not inspected by the police or had a physical presence in the court case. And his suspicions were, with suspicion, that the co-accused was acquitted. On the same evidence, the trial court stated and the order was finalized as no appeal was filed against the order. Being based on the same facts, it cannot be distinguished, so in this case the evidence was not sufficient to record the accused's conviction. There was no motive against the accused. No circumstance was in the record and the accused. Did not admit the crime, the trial court properly examined the evidence. The record was brought and the unjust result was based on sound legal grounds, requiring no interference by the principles of the High Court in deciding appeals against punishment and evil when once faced with the perpetrator of an offense. The authorized court was later acquitted by the criminal court. Long trial, then that double innocence
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
