Attempts to commit Sections 302, 324, 337F (iii) and 427 Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 QTL AMD, QTIL AMD, which was informed by mah mah, mischief, unauthorized weapon holding evidence The complainant did not name anyone. In the FIR, neither the eyewitness nor the witness in the court showed the presence of the prosecutor's witness on the occasion. Two witnesses, allegedly present at the scene of the crime, contradicted each other. The incident occurred at 7.30pm, but the FIR was silent about the light or the light bulb, the prosecution witness said. Did not disclose the reason for his presence. The indiscriminate firing was disclosed, but no clear firing was shown at any clear place; there was no evidence of circumstances that could have corroborated the account submitted by the prosecution witnesses, the investigating officer said. The crime scene had no effect. Investigation officer admitted in cross-examination that no specific mark was shown in the site plan, where 30 bore and 9 mm blank was recovered. The site plan contradicted the ocular account of the accused and the accused. The joint recovery of a separate pistol made on the offer, the next day after the arrest of the accused, was highly suspected the accused was not charged with firing at any place. The case was not inspected by the investigating officer in any of the eligible areas. Medical evidence was not in accordance with the prosecution's version, no recovery evidence was presented from the suburbs, pending trial decision.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
