Section 302 (b) / 34 Qatl i am Apprecia a conviction of evidence, the reduction in the FIR was immediately filed in this case, with Kalashnikov accused of the specific role of setting firearms on the victim. The evidence of was presented by the prosecution. The witness was prosecuted by another witness who was the eyewitness to the incident, Syed said that the witness had no connection, either with the victim or the complainant, that evidence existed near the scene. , Mochi was working to earn a witness when the victim was attacked, there is no reason for him, regardless of the circumstances to deny the presence of a witness in his place, If the stained clothing is not recovered, it will not be fatal to the prosecution. The indictment was extraordinary against the accused, but its evidence was proved by the independent evidence of another prosecution witness, in this case, despite no weapons being recovered, the ocular account presented by the trustee. Will not be relieved of its potential. Ocular evidence, the story was produced by defense witnesses, did not appeal the argument and it appeared that they had come forward to retrieve their relatives, the defendants when specific pleas were made and the attacker subsequently. Will fall on the shoulders of the beginner. The accused had failed to prosecute the above mentioned case, but the case against the two accused proved beyond doubt, the accused proved guilty under Section 2302 (b) / under 34, PPC retained the complainant's evidence. Who was the brother of the deceased revealed that the victim was involved in murder, attempted murder
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
