Sections 337A (i) and 337F (vi) Criminal Code of Conduct (V1898), section 417 (2) (A), in the appeal against the breach of the record of doubt, revealed that the appellant / complainant was initially The nature of the weapons was not specified. The crime in the FIR, but he later corrected his statement that he was targeted by the suspects, as the alleged incident took place in a mosque. Initially, the complainant called three persons to testify. Was named for the incident, but in his statement before the court, he confessed that there was only one present and that his brother and son were subsequently attracted to the prosecution's witnesses on the occasion. Denied that two of the three named witnesses were not present at the time of the crime. The person in the village was there and later people were attracted to the place, Said's witness said that he had not seen any one who had injured the complainant, only it was repeated between the parties and said that no witnesses had any relation. The IP did not prove any evidence against the accused on the record, the accused did not prove any of the evidence and the benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused, the trial court's trial did not properly establish the evidence on record. The High Court did not interfere with the same guarantee.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
