Section 302 (b) / 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (a), the benefit of doubt on the evidence was not recorded in the FIR police station, but on the basis of the written statement of the investigating officer. Was recorded. The complainant said that after the initial investigation, the complaint was lodged and it was alleged that contradictory testimony and non-contradictory contradictions were made between ocular evidence and medical evidence appeared in the police statement. After receiving the post-mortem report, eyewitnesses had a background of complaints The parties were related to the deceased and other eye witnesses were related to the deceased An eye-witness witness was excluded by the prosecution as a witness. What was there is no tendency to support it. Although the version of this prosecution was false, the defendant, despite being located in a PO at the scene, did not come forward to support the prosecution's case. The witness came to the trial. He did his best to prevent some of the facts from the court and to minimize the effect of the contradiction evident in his statement under Section 161, CRPC. The contents of the FIR and it have further improved to bring their evidence into line with medical evidence; the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution did not actually see it and their evidence is neither credible nor reliable. Confidence offenses can prove to be up to 20 days delayed in sending them against the fine. The forensic science laboratory, together with the investigating officer's conduct that sought to improve the prosecutor's case, has recovered the weapon.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
