Section 2 30b (b) The definition of evidence was evidence of the location of the case against the accused, no one had seen the accused cooking the prosecution's witnesses allegedly only saw poisoning, but then The suspect's alleged activity was not observed. Although the complainant had prepared a bottle of pesticide before the police from which it was mixed, evidence has not yet been shown that the bottle was obtained from the accused's custody even as mentioned above. The material in the bottle was never sent for chemical testing. To prove that the material was actually toxic and that the toxic ingredient found in the viscera of the two slain was of the same or at least the same nature, as long as it was not present in the bottle and unless the viscera's toxic content was Was not found. With a bottle of toxic pesticides, it could not be concluded that the cause of the victim's death was the administration itself, the same poison, which was allegedly dumped by the accused, plus seven other people. Other family members were also allegedly poisoned by poisonous food administration, but no material was extracted or taken from them. Stomach poisoning was a serious crime for humans, and sent to chemical inspection by itself, but prosecutors never charged, nor were the assailants assaulted by the accused. It is stated that the three accused brothers of the accused had conspired and benefited from it, who was acquitted by the trial court and their success was not challenged in the appeal.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
