The testimony of section 2302 (b) was attributed to an injured person when he himself filed a report in the emergency room of a civil hospital where he accused Kalashnikov's record of trying his life, which proved that The victim was conscious at that time. After filing the report, after which she died at the hospital, no question was raised from the prosecutor's witness, who was the victim's wife's mother-in-law, and in fact the deceased was killed by her husband and In order to save his son's fur, the victim's mother-in-law accused the accused of not having any clear point or twist or suspicion in the story narrated by the complainant, who was effectively firing and attempting to kill her. Was charged directly and at once. However, the declaration of death by his mouth was not available for any reason for any strong reason to be falsely implicated for the accused. The ocular testimony was trustworthy and untrustworthy and was corroborated by medical evidence, absence or lack of motive, could not make the prosecution's case false or doubtful, reliable and reliable evidence record. But there was no dispute over material discrimination that justified the dismissal of the witnesses' credibility against the credibility of the witnesses, who was appointed by the accused Motu's lawyer, who was otherwise Was a dual weapon. The mental state of the accused, which could not be substantiated by the report of the ballistic expert's ocular testimony, revealed that the eleven recovered on occasion did not match the weapon of crime against the crime, but the prosecution.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
