Section 302/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) The sole firearm Investigation Officer who received the testimony of a firearm received the benefit of doubt as to the evidence of the appellant against acquittal and the acquittal of the joint intention. Did not observe. Two vacant firearms and Kalashnikov's report show that both were fired by one and the same Kalashnikov was charged with one larceny, and two were accused of indiscriminate firing, according to the report. The firearms specialist's report, injury and medical evidence suggested that the same person was the complainant and the deceased was in the same position but the father was killed, while the son was kept free by prosecution. The complainant's statement was not believed to have been the alleged incident in the middle of the alleged incident At night on the roof top of the roof of the house was the presence of the dead for so many hours in the night without any doubt, the visibility of the ceiling on the roof of the courtyard, the recovery of blood from the stairs or the ceiling, the son / complainant. The presence of his father, the delay in filing the FIR, resulted in the incident not being as described. The prosecution had failed to prove the recovery of the retaliation witnesses from the prosecution by Kalashnikov, indicating that if he appeared in court, he did not support the alleged recovery, the motion was unchallenged, The prosecutor was obliged to prove his case beyond a shadow, if any reasonable doubt arises, his benefit should be extended to the accused, before the trial court.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
