The benefits of doubt in the definitions of Articles 302 (b), 379, 148 and 149 murder, theft, riots, common object evidence were not adequately explained by the delay of 1 1/2 hours in filing the FIR, which Had raised serious doubts about it. The truth of the prosecution's story, especially when the five named accomplices were acquitted, was said to be the result of a delayed consultation, considering the execution of innocent people in the trial, the prosecution's witnesses did not see the incident. The credibility of the prosecution had become a suspicious witness, who claimed to be a witness, did not make the injury, and merely stated that the suspect opened fire, and did not state whether the suspect's fire seemed to have killed the victim. Whether or not there is a dispute between the ocular and medical evidence, there is no avoiding witness at the relevant time. And a criminal case was registered between the complaining party and the family of the accused, the recovery of the pistol was legally irresponsible from the accused as no crime was recovered from the scene of the incident. The pistol recovered from the possession of the accused cannot be linked to the alleged crime. The defendant was not justified on the basis of unreliable / unverifiable evidence excluded by the witnesses interested in the trial, which would otherwise have been full of material contradictions, especially Incredible story was dismissed by prosecution witnesses, he was acquitted of the charge, he took advantage of the doubt. In the circumstances, the release is directed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
