In section 302 (b) and 201 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 Qatio Ahmed praised the evidence and the trial court had ruled that no one would be involved. The crime, unless the evidence and circumstances were the same, the police formed their opinion on the alleged fact that the accused was upset when he was present at the police station and when he was interrogated. That the articles were recovered because there was no suitable way because there was no content. The alleged recovery on record to establish the suspect's involvement in the crime was also beyond doubt as statements from two witnesses stated that the recovery was inconsistent and contradictory to each other, which cannot be believed. That no witnesses to the incident are available, evidence of the prosecution's testimony is stated in two versions, along with the statement of the FIR and the accused, and support the circumstances which record the sentence recorded by the trial court as baseless reasoning, limitation. And based on the assumption that, since the case is a double version, the benefit should go to the accused, especially when the accused Xinjiang was the truth. No general testimony was available, the motive was too weak and was not proven through documentary evidence The prosecution had failed miserably to prosecute the accused and the trial court had filed the case against the accused. And the suspects were released, under conditions
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
