Clauses 32 324 and 33 337 D Evidence Definition The benefit of the doubt was due to the fact that the foregoing enmity between the parties and the complainant did not exist, its statement cannot be taken as the truth of the gospel and the contradictory evidence of the circumstances. It is not necessary to enhance its version at all material points. Or where the bullets were recovered from the scene, the location of the incident was suspected and it can not be decided conclusively that the defendant's witness statement at the time of the incident was located at the location of the suspect. There was a direct confrontation with the statement's testimony. The circumstances of the complainant regarding the location and location were not confirmed by the medical evidence. The suspicions revolving around the incident had led to the hypothetical possibility that the complainant was fired by someone who ambushed him in the bushes. Significance should be given as the statement was not in harmony with incident evidence to confirm the whereabouts of the injured complainant, the time of the incident, as well as the circumstances in which the police were informed. He was also very skeptical of the complainant and the author of the report pointed out in two different places, where the report was filed, there is no doubt about it. But the remaining episode of the complainant could not be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, which could have led to serious doubts over the nomination of the accused, who had been motivated by false allegations due to previous enmity, to take advantage of the suspect. He had to go, suspecting that he had gone bad
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
