Article 2 302 (b) / 2 Qat / evidence 34 Definition of evidence of robbery morning and robbery The benefit of the doubt During the trial, the prosecutor's witness admitted that he had made a statement about the assailants in the FIR. It was not the accused in the court. They were detained and included by the current accused persons, the prosecution witnesses correctly identified the accused during the identification parade with their specific character and drove them out, but in the identification parade Mere selection was not enough clear evidence, but it was merely a fact of fact. The witnesses took them out because such evidence was not sufficient as the actual examination was indicative of the accused in the court when the witness was testifying while the witness's witness failed to identify the accused during the trial. There was also evidence of the parade was not of the standard on which the cap was to be relied on for the conviction. It was last seen that the allegation of Italy was not concluded, as the second link to the extra-judicial confession was already rejected. Was, in these cases, an effective or standard of trust and mutual trust in maintaining the trial Had failed to present any evidence of the nature of wool. The court's testimony of the prosecution's witnesses in connection with the identification of the accused at the time of the incident was not only contradictory, but it was highly suspected that the last time viewed and other evidence of extra-judicial confession could not be relied upon. The heirs defective prosecution failed to prove his case beyond doubt, the two suspects were given the benefit of the doubt and were acquitted.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
