Section 2 302 (b) Qatil Amad did not include the names of the accused and the witnesses in the definition of evidence; What was the nephew of the complainant. And the story presented by him did not stand because the place of the incident was surrounded and there were different people's houses, but these houses were not attracted to anybody, additional statement presented by witnesses, Was not recorded seven days after. Such a delay would imply that the second version was deliberately presented, which adversely affected the prosecution's case, but the complainant had not seen the incident. And later, the prosecutor's testimony was presented by the complainant, who stated that he did not witness the incident, there was no further evidence on file to link the suspect to the crime. Failed to justify the presence of, no evidence of opportunity could be found. To be relied upon until its presence is justified and this justification can be justified, strong coherence was needed to make this statement credible, in the presence of which the blood-stained ground from place to place. Along with the recovery there was a lead of 30 bore. And in the positive report from the forensic science laboratory, the initial data of the FIR were not confirmed and the subsequent corrections made through additional statements, and evidence were also put in place, as the commission of the crime in any way The accused, the trial court, closed his eyes
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
