MST. BAKHT SABA versus THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL
Section 2302 (b) of the law in the testimony (of 1984 of the ten), that the incident occurred in the filing of the FIR definition of the clause, when the incident took place at midnight while the report was filed for 10 15 hours. Was. The complainant was told that he received a notice of his brother's death at 7.30 / 8pm, while the distance between the incident and the police station was 10/12km and about the delay. There was no explanation immediately after the incident that the complainant's behavior was against human behavior because he did not try to take his brother's body to the hospital or to the police station, but he was awaiting the arrival of the police on the spot. It is not possible to refuse counsel and consideration in filing a report. He assisted the defendants despite the fact that they were important witnesses in the prosecution's case under Article 129 (g) of the law. The evidence, at 1984, could be drawn in favor of the accused because the prosecutor withheld his best evidence, because in the same case, allegations of creating a reasonable doubt in a wise mind were not to be dismissed, but rather to be acquitted. Was considered sufficient for People were not enough to maintain punishment and conviction The High Court took advantage of the suspects and they were acquitted
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
