Section 302 (b) Definition of Evidence The complainant and two other witnesses of the principle of benefit of the doubt claimed that they had identified the accused in the light of the torch at the time of the incident, but according to the complainant's admission There was no torch mentioned on the record that in fact the torch was available at the time of the incident. To identify the accused, the complainant had clearly stated that he had not presented any torch to the police. The witnesses offered different explanations in their statements, as both witnesses dismissed that the flashlight used at the time of the crime. Oops, there were three battery cell, while the complainant did not support the case of the two battery cells in which the description of the torch complainant litigation against him. The defendant, at the point of identification, as he clearly stated that he did not see who fired the gun at the victim's prosecution. Matters failed to establish beyond the reasonable doubt the identity of the accused when the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the case was suspected, no responsibility for the commission of the crime could be determined. To create reasonable doubt in a reasonable and careful mind, there were several reasons why the doubts of the eyewitness statements were not necessary, which were contradictory to each other and contradictory to themselves, they had no identifiable value. The trial court was set aside by the trial court to extend the benefit of the doubt, to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
