Section 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed was not a witness to the complainant who complained of the testimony, but he was notified of the incident and filed an FIR, which was the nephew of the victim, the prosecution. Both were witnesses. Residents of the scene, located more than 100 km from the scene of the incident, reported version of the eyewitness testimony regarding their presence at the scene. And the fact of the incident was stated by them, not a convincing and reliable inspection memo of the location of the incident, drawn on the indicator of the complainant, who was not an eyewitness to the incident. Ocular witnesses failed to justify his presence. In the event, without any other independent co-operation, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be relied upon, the most important free-eyed testimony, and the testimony of the hard-hitting witnesses, despite their testimony being available at trial. Was stopped. And an injured witness was also not offered ad interference under the statement (g) of Article 129 of 1984, testimony of the law, that could be presented by the prosecution to the accused, whose plea guilty to prove bail. The person submitted, was not killed by the prosecution. The said circumstances had broken the case of the prosecution and raised reasonable doubt in the matter. Its benefit had to extend to the accused persons, for one reason or another, enough to refute the statement of witnesses that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; Suspended The accused were acquitted of the charge and were released on bail
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
