Section 2 30b (b) definition of evidence was not a view of an incident; no person was named in the FIR because an accused prosecution case was granted immunity on circumstantial evidence; He presented evidence of confession, he was related to the accused and although he went to the police station on the same day when the accused confessed to his crime, he did not try to apprehend the accused nor did he approach the police or anyone else. Informed of this fact for a period of five days. Neither the record of the accused was recorded under section 164, CCPC, nor any of the witnesses presented before the trial court, even if these statements were for non-compliance with the requirements of section 364. Considerations were not worth considering; the last time the CCP presented evidence and the mutual destruction presented by the relevant witnesses was recovered from one another in the open space exactly one month after the incident, and thirty-six days after that chemical. As examined, no blood stains could possibly be detected and the positive report of the chemical examiner was of no use to the prosecution. Yes, the deceased's body was not recovered. The accused was exempted and he was charged with mere suspicion. There were inherent contradictions in the whole situation and any of these suspects would have to go in favor of the accused. Was acquitted.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
