Section 302, 324 and 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), section 417 (2A) Qtl e amd, the attempt to AMD of the murder, the joint intention to prosecute the prosecution case was based on the complainant's statement, the victim's daughter-in-law. And a prosecutor's witness, who was the tenant of the accused, fired indiscriminately at the accused, but found no vacant space from the crime scene, nor was the blood recovered from that location. The site's plan showed that blood was found somewhere else, no direct fire, and the deceased was charged with two eyewitnesses saying that indiscriminate firing inside or outside the duck. The airing was made, but no bullet was found, medical evidence was denied. The presence of eyewitnesses said the two witnesses, however, failed to build trust, but reliably and permanently. Was suspected. Evidence against the acquitted defendant was not affected by the presence of eyewitnesses on this occasion because they failed to present a plausible explanation for justifying their presence on the spot, medical evidence and site at the time of the incident. The plan also negated the version given to them. No independent and unwanted witnesses were presented at the trial, so that eyewitness accounts could be verified, there was no credible evidence to support the prosecution's case, from the trial. Before approving unwanted verdicts, the trial court properly failed the entire evidence. The accused were charged by the trial court
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
