Section 2 (2 (b)) did not consider evidence of delay of one hour and twenty-five minutes in filing the FIR, in the absence of any such explanation, it can be inferred that after the passage of time Examination was carried out after consultation and deliberation. The statement of the injured, who was injured and survived for a long time, was not recorded, yet there was nothing available in the medical evidence that he In the event of an injury, he was unable to speak. There was some doubt about the nature of the incident, such as the incident. It is true that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence relating to the ownership of the criminal arms. At the time of the incident, filing and filing of the FIR, it was suspected that the ocular version was fraught with contradictions, not straightforward and redesigned by open source. Was made that could not be the basis for the conviction of the accused, in the circumstances, the benefit of the doubt was The sentence was set aside, he was acquitted of the charge and was given a free sentence under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
