The testimony of Section 302 (b) was permanently claimed by both witnesses, who was the accused who fired Kalashnikov on the victim and the medical officer also suffered only one firearm on the victim. And despite the lengthy investigation, the credibility of the two witnesses could not be tarnished by presenting material contradictions recorded at the root of the prosecution case, the incident was a widespread incident and the parties knew each other, in making allegations, No misidentification was possible under the circumstances. And the statements of the real culprit of the witnesses cannot be ruled out; there can be no doubt that the two witnesses of the prosecution were mutual, but their evidence could not be denied, merely because of their mutual relationship. The reason is because of their admirable explanations and reasons. At the relevant time, his presence at the scene was according to medical evidence, with ocular evidence the sole suspect was charged with the crime, when the offender's compensation was a rare case when the evidence of the prosecution was very, very strong. And was permanent, after the incident, the disappearance of the accused would support the prosecution, the prosecutor had proved his case. The accused is beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was responsible for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 (b), PPC and not under section 302 (c), PPC, which was conducted by the trial court more than The more relaxed had already been extended to the accused by the trial court and, given the circumstances, the death sentence was not justified as the mitigating verdict contained the mitigating circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
