Appreciating the Section 2 302 (b) evidence Both witnesses made consistent statements about the complainant's statement at the civil hospital; some delay in the recording of the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution's version, as witnesses noted As the injury to the victim was attributed to the accused but there was no evidence that the FIR was lodged to some extent, the FIR had the evidence to the extent of the accused. The K fragment can be used as an effective piece even though there was some prior rivalry between the parties. And criminal cases were registered, but there was an agreement between the parties that the complainant and the prosecution witness were residents of the same area where the incident took place and both said that witnesses fully explained their presence on the spot. Is. Both witnesses could be interpreted as time-lapse and they were not sufficient to target the prosecution's case. Both said that the witnesses' involvement in the incident was at the time, location and material of the incident. The points are consistent, the incident occurred immediately after the western Adan when there was light and otherwise this incident occurred in the square where the number of people was present in the square, it was usual for the accused. The identity was exactly the same as the one living in the area and the question was not answered. That was not the case at this time and the prosecution reportedly had nothing available on record to remove the accountant, in which the co-accused was trusted and trusted to the extent that the accused was involved as a central suspect. Contract
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
