Section 302 (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) appeals against the High Court to acquit the accused by the complainant and his two sons, according to the FIR, three persons come out of their homes. Who can be identified by them. If the accused was listed in the FIR as the complainant's servant, if he was one of the three persons, then the complainant and his son had made dishonest improvements during the trial and both the courts would have made their statements. Is correctly rejected. The courts were not challenged by the complainant's lawyer and sought to prove their cases on the basis of circumstantial evidence that there was another evidence of direct evidence against the accused, when other pieces of evidence They were used for fragmentation or in support of direct evidence. If it was denied then the conviction could not be safely made on the basis of convincing or corroborative evidence, not a month after the incident, the recovery of the blood-stained knife did not open the special possession of the accused, rightly so. Denied, especially when blood on the knife was damaged during the incident, 21 days after the incident from the complainant's store, the recovery of clothes was also not credible, as it was most likely that the accused complainant Come on and hide the role of the clothes in the shop, there was no benefit to the plaintiff's hand-made prosecution, Kevin If this was the case during the incident, the prosecution witnesses must have been spot on that the accusation had no purpose to commit the crime. Unknown
