Section 497 (2) of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 302/324/148/149 Qatimul Amd, Grant of the incident took place at midnight, 2400 hours, and the complainant and the prosecution witnesses testified in the light of the accused. Had claimed. Of the bulbs installed in the house, but the investigating officer also showed two trees in the site plan from where the accused was shot to death, which would make the identity of the suspect suspicious. Were exported. Inside the house, however, the complainant did not disclose the name of the accused, including the firing on the complaining party, from the wall toward the house, nor is there any report of a forensic science laboratory on the empty cells. As the number of offenders participated in the commission of the crime, while the complainant also gave the role of firing on the accused sitting on the wall, to extend the bail of the accused under sub-section (2) of section 497 To facilitate the prosecution's case, the CCP accused was declared by the relevant doctor to be a disabled person, aged about 62 years. Is. It was not possible for the accused. When the left fracture of his left leg suffered from a compound fracture, climbing or descending the wall when such a question was needed would be required when recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses at trial. There is a reasonable basis for believing that the first accused did not belong. In addition to committing a crime under the section 497 restriction clause, the CC suspect was admitted on bail in the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
