Section 302 (b) Definition of Evidence The benefit of doubt was not given to the investigating witness, who was the cousin of the deceased, as an eyewitness to the FIR. His name and location were also omitted in the site plan prepared on the day of the incident, saying that the first suspicion arose because of the mistake he made under section 161 CCPC. The statement of the witness was recorded. Two days after the incident, when he was taken to the police station for the said purpose, such a reversal under Section 161, CRPC, severely diminished the credibility of a witness because of his non-existence on the day of the incident. There is no plausible explanation for the examination. Therefore, after the presence of the prosecution witness and witnessing the incident, it was not a suspicious and credible complaint, although there was no direct motive for the allegation, But the purpose of the incident was also surrounded by doubts. Because he cited some clashes in the FIR, but in the court he showed lack of information regarding the rejection of medical evidence; relying on the complainant's statement for the conviction of the accused in the case is highly unwarranted. Considered safe, the prosecution did not prove its case beyond doubt, the benefit of the doubt was conveyed to the accused, for which he was entitled to a guilty verdict. The sentence was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge and released.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
