Section 302, 324, 337F (iv) and 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Qatel AMD, an attempt to commit murder, which appeals to a united, joint purpose against the British. The prosecutor excluded the witnesses for no good reason, which was akin to withholding the best evidence; the victim's brother, the complainant, also, due to blood relations, from the category of witness who was interested as the complainant. Could not be deleted. To bring this case beyond the scope of the general rule, the evidence of the interesting witness should have been examined with great care and caution that the complainant had made some inadvertent improvements in his cross-examination so that his story could be treated as medical. Present it with proof. And the other circumstances of the case, contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, led to doubts about the incident that did not occur. According to the mood and manner, as the complainant alleged, once a witness was found to be lying on a material aspect of the case, he usually should not believe the other side of the case, Unless the testimony testified is fully proven. The independent administration, which was facing a shortfall in the current case, was accused of prosecuting witnesses who were accused of the general role of shooting, but no evidence was brought to prove the same case, The prosecution's witnesses did not support the prosecution's version. The witness failed to prove each of the accused's individual involvement in the crime, and the collar evidence also contradicted the medical evidence, from the site designated to the suspect in the plan.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
