Articles 2 302 (b) and Q 34 Qatil-e-Amal, the joint intention evidence Three Three accused were initially charged in the FIR, but the FIR was given to the accused by the complainant. Effective role, the prosecution was a minor supporter of the witnesses' contradictions in the evidence, the accused cannot be considered for acquittal The eyewitnesses were acquitted without material contradiction. He was subjected to cross-taxation, but nothing was brought to the contrary, my relations with the complainant and the witnesses do not disqualify any witness to be a true and natural witness. Will Their testimony could not be terminated because of their relationship. There was no justification as to why the complainant and the witnesses would be falsely implicated, or substitute them for the original offenders. Yes, there was no chance of blasphemy and eyewitness disbelief. The identity of the witnesses, belonging to the same village, cannot be doubted, the prosecutor's evidence will be identified by the accused's lawyer, the prosecution's case will not be affected. In the same way, it cannot be called a grave. , Therefore, the defendant's guilt for damaging the substance of the prosecution case was established with conviction and conviction. The motive for the killing was not established, the accused fled for a period of about one year, and weapons were recovered from it. The accused medical evidence and the time given in the sender and post-mortem report were, according to each other, Ocu Lari's account, dispersal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
