Section 242424 and Pro 34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), section 417 (2A) law evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) attempt to commit murder, joint appeal against the admissibility of evidence, benefit of doubt. The matter was reported after a delay of 17 hours, and no plausible explanation was offered for the delay, in addition to the specific motive among the parties, in view of the delay in filing the report, it can be said. The complainant, in his statement, had eaten through thoughtfulness and advice, had completely negated the earlier version of his report, which was the best The evidence, which was withheld under Article 129 (g) of the Convention of Evidence, implies a negative indication, 1984, that if the aforesaid witness was presented, he would not support the litigation case regarding the light source at the time of the incident. There was not a word in the statement, nor did the investigating officer collect any instrument of light of the accused's identity; in the circumstances there was a highly investigative officer, examined as a prosecutor's witness, confessed that In this case during the investigation, they found that the defendant's innocent ocular account was contradicted by the injured complainant and other circumstances of the incident. He's no match, the trial court could not take any exception to the advantage of the doubt after properly scrutinize the evidence was rightly acquitted the accused. Absence of any misunderstanding, non-reading of material evidence and any weakness in unknown decision
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
