Section 2 30at Conviction in connection with the distance from the shooting of AMD doctors and witnesses The site of the incident was a secluded spot where serious defects and suspicions were made due to no delay in registering the case. Was retained. The ocular evidence provided by the prosecution's witnesses was available in the evidence. The forensic science laboratory report proved that the blanks recovered from the scene of the incident were recovered from the suspect's gun, if it is said that a piece of evidence is believed, then any of the suspects There was no case, but serious defects were identified by the accused's lawyer, who found evidence that vacancies were submitted after two days' recovery in Multia without explanation, the Investigation Officer who recovered the vacancies, Also did not record the statement under Section 161, CRPC. Muharram and the constables said that the vacancies are in safe custody, the statements made by the investigating officer regarding the possession of guns were not recorded, CRPC statements were recorded under section 161, one year in CCPC. Recorded after more than that time, the Inquisitr report did not say that anything was recovered from around the body, according to the prosecution, while the case was recovered from the dead body, which led to the suspect's story. It was found that the sentence imposed by the trial court in connection with the trial was set aside, the accused was acquitted. Accused was acquitted.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
