Validation of Section 2 (2 (b) Evidence of Suspicion) Delay of suspicion Reporting delay of approximately 8 / / hours, was not considered understandable Medical evidence was declared as contradictory to ocular account, but was stated During cross-examination by the complainant, the effect was that the accused was equipped with a prosecution and had changed his position and tried to bring the matter in line, but failed to do so. And the case did not result in recovery, as it was so. The trial court acquitted those affected by the suspicion of open space under Jharmut, while denying the bulk of the prosecution's version, he said on the same set of evidence that any of the accused accused He was not apprehended by the prosecution before the forum. If the accused had denied the prosecution's evidence, the other could not be trusted. The trial court argued that the accused was guilty of the crime. The record was based on the invalid part of the statement of the accused under section 342, the CRPC prosecution had to stand on its own feet. Took and faced weaknesses of defense. By no means did the prosecution, which laid the basis for the registration of the offense, had reasonably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt until the accused's statement had to be fully accepted or fully accepted. Will have to be rejected unless there is other independent / credible evidence that concludes the prosecution's case. It was not so,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
