Section 302/34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6/7 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 Conspiracy benefit from suspected terrorism and possessing arms also involved in commission of crime was done. Along with two other men, who were assigned equal roles without distinction, a prosecution witness said he saw the suspect shoot at the victim and did not lay the blame on the other accused. Another prosecution witness also improved his statement. Section 161, CRPC, made a statement 23 days after the incident in which the accused was named as the assailant who announced that he had opened fire. Hearing that the accused was seen running away from the scene. The witness was not effective in light of his delayed statement under Section 161, CR PC. He was not an eyewitness to the incident, but said he saw a man lying in the channel after the shooting, saying that the witness did not mention the presence of other witnesses on the spot, because in a good case. There was no case against the accused. Based on the other material on record, his conviction was not put on record but a photocopy of it was found in the file and the number of pistols mentioned in it was different, as shown in the restoration memo prosecution. He failed to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were unable to be relied upon, while giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, his conviction and sentence were set aside and released. Was instructed to do
