Section 302 (b) appreciated the value of the evidence, the benefit of the doubt came at 3 in the morning and although the availability of the electric bulb at the scene of the incident was mentioned in the FIR and was dismissed by eyewitnesses. But the site plan developed by DraftShine did not indicate the presence of such an electric bulb anywhere at the location of the suspect's identity, as was the uncle of the complainant, who was on trial before the trial. Was not established by. And one of the prosecution's witnesses was the deceased uncle's uncle, while the other witness for the prosecution was the neighbor of the complainant. The trial record contradicted the complainant about his claim to take the injured person to the hospital. The trial complainant had made the statement separately from the complainant in the FIR before the oath was taken. The case involved was that if the co-accused was executed by the complainant on the basis of a suspicion, he could be equally right with the accused as well as the partner. Who was convicted by the trial court for specific injuries to the victim, not only did the prosecutor's statement contradict the FIR, but also the statement other than the statement made before the trial court. The witness, who was the neighbor of the complainant, admitted before the trial court that he found that he did any injury to the witnesses of the deceased's eyes, the circumstances were unpredictable and it is likely that he Pillow to anyone obliged
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
