Due to the respect of the section 4 32 33 and 7 i7f (ii) murder, Damiya appreciated the evidence, which delayed 2 hours in reporting the incident to the police, but in consultation with the complainant. The source alleged that there was a blood rivalry with the accused. Consideration of replacing the original offender, cannot be excluded, the injured complainant's statement in the circumstances went against the earlier version of the report, the complainant introduced a new story in his statement. Appellant has no mind to tell the story of moving the police station to the rickshaw; because he has not listed the rickshaw driver in his report nor in his statement, the investigating officer has rickshaw driver under section 161, CR PC , And the complainant's statement citing him as a witness in the challan was absolutely negative. In her report, the complainant specifically stated in her report that many people in the village had witnessed the incident, but no independent witness was taken by the investigating officer to testify about its presence. The complainant and the investigating officer said the site was planned the same day. At night, but the complainant admitted that he remained in the hospital for 3 days, the complainant's statement did not come forward with clear hands, given the material contradictions and contradictions, And tried to hide the fact that the facts of the incident were the statement of the injured witness, supported by medical evidence, although W is sufficient to record the sentence, provided that it is true and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
