The benefit of the doubt was based on the testimony of the investigating witnesses in defining the evidence in section 302 (b). As witnesses to the incident were not directly aware, nor in their presence, did the deceased (then injured) make any statement to the police or the victim under section 161, CR PC (subsequently injured) ) Was filed by a police officer with a police report. , And he did not testify or disclose to the doctor about the presence of the doctor or any other hospital official, or the attainment of the fitness certificate (then the injured) on the victim's condition, in this statement. Nothing was known about the presence of the doctor. The condition of the deceased (then injured) was synchronized at the relevant time and date when the casualty was present at the time of his arrival at the hospital. The doctor did not support the statement of the deceased (then injured). It was not safe to rely on the most natural and material witnesses' act of circumstance, which would create the impression that the witness, the IF, may not have supported the prosecution, nor the best evidence to be examined. Doing so made the prosecution's case more dubious, and the benefit of such doubt was raised in favor of the trial judge's decision. Was,, the accused was acquitted of the charge and released in the circumstances
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015
