Section 302 (b) / 201/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1998), section 1601 allegations against the accused arose out of the testimony of the prosecutor, who was the defendant in the case, but it was passed under the order of the trial statement. had gone. The said witness was recorded as having been admitted under Section 164, the CCP witness was hot and cold in his breath and from time to time changed his position, did not rely on his testimony on the murder charge. However, the testimony of the witness became all the more striking, when it was revealed after its passage, it cannot be said honestly and truthfully by any adjective, even if its status as a companion is dubious. Went, when his statement was recorded by the magistrate, they were all shocked. The account wisdom rule, which was clearly entered into the rule of law, required co-operation with the court's testimony before proceeding to record a conviction on such testimony. Encouraged whether it relied on its own rights and then endorsed it by independent, impartial and undisclosed means when such testimony was neither relied upon, neither in its own rights, nor independent. , Could not be endorsed by irresponsible and unreliable sources. The motivations also seemed to be a deliberate and fabricated form, as it came about two months later when every piece of evidence related to his careful estimation appeared to be tainted and tainted. It would not be wise to keep up. One corroborative proof of evidence, the other not corroborating corroborative evidence
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
