Section 302 (b) Qatil Ahmed defined the evidence as the husband of the accused named in the criminal report. And it was a daylight case when the complainant and the prosecution witness, before it was alleged that it could be safely prevented that there was no possibility of mistaken identity of the assailant, both prosecutors. The witnesses had set up the information between the spouses to receive the dispute. It could not be said that the witnesses made false statements, both said that the prosecution's witnesses testified against each other. The characteristics of the incident, in relation to the injuries sustained by the accused on the victim. And despite lengthy scrutiny, his testimony could not be defaced, there could not be a day's delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, which would otherwise have been fully settled. As explained, this can be interpreted as minor in nature, so there is no objection to the testimony of the ocular account. , Who seemed to be directly and reliably affected by the testimony of the complainant and the prosecutor, although they were closely related, and closely related to the victim, but only so closely related, the witness Could not deny that, otherwise he was credible, his appeal was supported by reasoning and defense by the defendant in independent circumstances. Received full support from the accused, and upon the identification of the accused a blood stained salmon was recovered, and accordingly reported
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
