FARIDULLAH SHAH versus SYED NAWAZ SHAH ALIAS GUL KHAN
Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), Sections 302/324, Trial of Criminal Procedure AMD and Conviction of Qtl AMD Against the Victims' Evidence All the accused were acquitted by the trial of evidence. The petitioner was the complainant / complainant against whom the accused witness was the real brother of the complainant who was the sole witness in the case not only had deep connection with the victim, but also established that the accused Hostility must be closely related. Evidence, but in the present case, independent autonomy was not available to support the statement of any single witness. No weapon was recovered in this case and the testimony of the ocular version complainant / prosecutor was not supported to be a witness of interest, his testimony was to be examined carefully and carefully even on medical evidence. Even if it is believed, this will result in no support because if direct evidence is not to be believed, there is no benefit of perseverance until the presence of the prosecution witness / complainant at the time of the incident. It was also suspected that the forensic science laboratory trial court's report contradicted the evidence of the prosecution's sole witness Was done In the circumstances, the accused were rightfully acquitted, demanding no interference.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
