Defining the evidence in section 302 (b), the deficiency in the prosecution's case was that after the accused had committed his wife (the deceased), he set her on fire, which caused her to expire. Direct evidence was not pointing out that, after spraying kerosene or in some other way, the victim's father / the victim's father had just discharged, that the accused was a drug addict and his wife / victim. On the day of the incident, the complainant was not present, and, upon being informed of the incident, arrived at the suspect's house and found his daughter dead. The overall situation indicated that the accused had not committed Khattal Amad with his wife while she was physically injured. Probably cause death or with the knowledge that this act was so dangerous that it should potentially cause the death of the deceased described under Section 00, death, PPC. It said that the injuries suffered by the victims were actually the cause of his death charge against the accused under section 2302 (b), PPC did not prove the evidence that came on record that the accused was the victim. Was beaten, which caused her to lose it. After being angry and spraying kerosene, he set himself on fire. The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused under Section 302 (b), PPC, and the evidence available on the record concludes that the section. 337A (i), the case was established under PPC. The accused against injury to the accused as charged under section 302 (b) in the medical report, the PPC was replaced in accordance with section 337A (i) PPC and
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2009
