Section 2 302 (b) filed an FIR immediately on the allegation of appreciation of Qatil Ahmed evidence, within minutes of the incident, within hardly 50 minutes, leaving hardly any scope for consultation and consideration. They were charged and relied on for alternatives, such as cases where the prosecution's witnesses had no reason to substitute the accused and go to the real culprit, especially when the accused and the complaining party had a There was no enmity with the other, the source of light was established by chance to recover two 100-watt bulbs. The FIR alleges that there was no enmity between the parties, that the ocular account was trustworthy and was fully supported by the medical evidence; there was no major contradiction and contradiction in the prosecution's evidence, On the contrary, material reasons were also given for the same reasons. It was not legal for the two persons to appear as prosecution witnesses as unity nor the amount of evidence which had to be considered and decided at trial because the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the accused is likely to present some evidence to prove the trial court's conviction and to leave it to others. In the case, the prosecution had properly analyzed the evidence, proved their case against the suspect without any doubt, proved the motive, and no circumstance was less likely to prevent the death sentence. , The trial court convicted the accused and the appeal against the sentence was dismissed
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
