Sections 2302, 643 & Q 449 and ?9 Q The timing and location of the mischief, fire or explosives incident was not as usual due to their presence at the site of the incident, as provided by them. , Was not convinced. In such a situation, it would be extremely dangerous to rely on them explicitly, in the present case, it seemed that the number of accused was exaggerated and more and more people of the same family were involved where the same More and more family members were involved, witnesses were opportunists, ocular evidence contradicted medical evidence. And the only natural witness was left without justification. And independent witnesses coming to the scene were not called to testify, it would not be safe to dismiss the rule of seeking independent support of the evidence of interested witnesses; there is a backdrop of enmity between the parties, three witnesses examined by the prosecution. The three witnesses did not say how and who set the house on fire and who threw the dead body into the fire and raised serious doubts over the claim of eyewitnesses. One of the key witnesses to the incident was the witness witness prosecution, saying that the non-examination of the Syed witness, who was the only natural witness, would have a bad effect on the prosecution's case, when the reason for giving up the most important witness was conviction. No, the presence of witnesses at the scene of the incident was a highly suspected trial court. The heinous act of the crime provided medical evidence to the accused, provided no evidence against any of the accused from the scene of the incident and three. The alleged weapons recovered from the persons identified are not to a ballistic expert
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
