Section 302 (b) Qatil appreciated the evidence. Both the prosecution witnesses, who made unrepentant corrections to their statements at the trial, were not true witnesses, the presence of witnesses present on the occasion at the relevant time also seemed inconsistent, and the circumstances of the case were unreliable and The suspicions were also not understandable, as it was a fabricated story after they allegedly went to the complainant's house to tell them about the incident and then pursued the accused until the incident. The witnesses were not only contradictory to each other, but also self-destructive in nature, until the sole purpose of the prosecution was known to be sufficiently effective to involve the accused, and the accomplices' incident was a nightly event. , Which was the missing eye statement. The witnesses were unbelievable, conflicted, conflicted and mistrustful and full of dishonesty in the prosecution's case, but the result was a loss and their recovery was rendered useless. Because the Ocular Account could not find credible evidence that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to identify the exact location of the incident, it can be concluded that the prosecutor failed to reasonably prosecute the accused. Yes, it was not necessary that there should be many situations which cause doubt, but here it is That an issue that raises reasonable doubt in the minds of ordinary people. Regarding the crime of the accused, the accused must go to his benefit. The accused has been acquitted of the charges.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
