Section 2 302 (b) Testimony of Qatil-Umid evidence The benefit of the suspect was extremely suspicious of the presence of the prosecution witnesses at the time of the incident because they failed to explain their presence in the victim's home satisfactorily, no witness testimony. Is confirmed by independent evidence. Their evidence cannot be relied upon to establish a witness. Keeping both of the prosecution's witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, unnatural, would therefore be sufficient to exclude a witness's statement if there was a reasonable doubt about his presence. At one point, the prosecution witness made deliberate and dishonest improvement in his statement to bolster the prosecution's case, which had lost his credibility and led to the alleged value shooter being fired on the accused. She died on the spot, but no vacancy was recovered. By chance, which made the prosecution's case suspicious, the prosecution had failed to present any of the people in the location, who had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident in which the murder or death sentence was imposed. The conviction may have been, the prosecution was obliged to corroborate the evidence through open source, but it lacked the substitution of the innocent person when the accused was charged in the murder of one of the accused, though this was a rare occurrence. However, this will depend on the dispute between the parties on the issue. Both prosecution witnesses, who fall into the category of interested witnesses, were intended to wrongfully execute the innocent. The incident described by the prosecution by the prosecution and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
