Section 302, 324 and 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Qatil Emad, four counts of indictment for complimentary evidence, appeal of joint intention against Britt, testimony, But no specific role was attributed to any of the accused in the effective shooting of the victim. The only independent witness in this case was the driver of the vehicle who was hurt on the spot, but he said that the driver was not presented by the prosecution. With the prosecution's witness ruling to set his case on the accused, he was also in the car with the victims. And he was at the top of the car at the time of the incident. And came before the invaders. But there was no reason to show how he escaped from his life when he was unarmed and subjected to bloodshed with the assailants, the complainant and alleged eyewitness statements of the victim's incident. Material differences were observed between. And the way this incident happened, the driver's vehicle was inspected as a defense witness, and it did not support the version and position taken by the complainant and the accused who was acquitted for the commission of the crime. But never charged. The version of the record available to the complainant shows that neither the complainant nor the prosecutor's witness were delayed 2/2 hours to file the report with the victim at the time of the incident and, in particular, when the complainant's A passenger car was available and there was a clear road appeal near the police station, with no substance and goodwill against the eviction, dismissed under conditions.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
