FAZAL-UR-REHMAN versus THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL (AJ&K)
Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XXN of 1965), section 13 of the conviction, the joint intent, the benefit of the doubt of having unlicensed firearms, the benefit of the suspect was not an unexpected event, nor was the prosecution in this case. Witnesses were available, neither witnessed the incident directly, nor did anyone identify, but fleeing to the scene when the incident had already occurred, the recovery of the pistol 10 days after the arrest of the accused. Was done And both recovery witnesses were policemen. While no one was involved in the independent witness recovery process, which made the prosecution's case suspect, some articles, such as mobiles, two photos and diaries, were unable to provide evidence for the testimony, as witnesses' statements indicate. There were contradictions. He said the recovery was seriously suspicious, which denied the facts of the recovery, saying that the recovery was not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused. During the prosecution, no witnesses were found. The suspicion of all the evidence made was filled with suspicion, and the suspicion would have to be taken advantage of, in connection with the link to the evidence in the circumstances, after the disappearance, said the trial court granted the accused. The evidence cannot be relied upon in the judgment of the accused, as the prosecution had failed to prove the accused against the accused. In case of any doubt not but, freed the accused was acquitted on charges of murder and had, \ conditions r \ n
Related judgments — Shariat Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
