Section 302 (b) / 34 Qatl e amd Checking of evidence, reduction of mitigating circumstances The evidence of the prosecution's witnesses was truthful, genuinely inspirational and reliable and did not suffer from any material defect or was mild. There were contradictions and contradictions to create some suspicion. What went wrong with the co-accused's guilt was related to the prosecution's case. Acular evidence and medical reports of injuries, eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence were supported, with eyewitnesses fully supporting each other on the material. Without contradictions, the motive for the crime has been beyond doubt, although the statements of the three witnesses were recorded six days after the incident without any explanation, but two other witnesses Can be relied upon. Names surfaced in the FIR regarding incidents. And their statements can be trusted. The incident took place on a broad day, and the FIR was lodged without delay, in which case the question of false implications would not arise, when witnesses showed their presence at the place of presence. Was charged. The FIR consisted of ocular evidence of the prosecution's witnesses with a specific role, and after long cross-examination, the defense lawyer could not collect a single word that could have benefited the accused, however, there was some buzz. There were situations that the two sides had a deep relationship with and there was no backdrop of any previous rivalry or deep root rivalry between the accused and the deceased, but by chance the meeting of the two parties resulted.
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
