Articles 4 324 and 7 337F (iv) An attempt to define the evidence was reported on the actual incidental day in the fields between the village populations, the information was promptly recorded, including consultation and deliberations or false. There was no scope for opportunities. In this case, there was animosity between the accused parties and the investigating agency succeeded in obtaining a host of a pre-registered FI between the parties. A long cross-examination was conducted, but the defense failed miserably to damage its credibility, with the prosecutor's other witness complaining without exaggeration that the prosecutor's testimony was related to the complainant, Support, but being a natural witness, his credibility will not be regarded as suspicious The project has identified this clear. The presence of the incident and he saw the incident with his own eyes and did not conclude that the testimony of the interested witness Angry on the affected person confirmed that the accused and the witness were charged by the witness. As was alleged, he was directly charged without any delay in the FIR, which allegedly resulted in injuries sustained by the accused. The complainant's hands, however, did not appeal and, if anything, might have been caused by a dispute when the prosecutor's witness participated in the bloody game when Kalashnikov was snatched from the accused by the accused. In his statement filed under Section 2342, the CCP appears to have eaten it
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
