Section 2 302 (b) definition of convicted AMD evidence, prompt filing of FIRs in mitigating cases, there was no possibility of false involvement of the accused complainant and prosecution witness, not relevant to material points. Was. From the presence of the complainant and the prosecution witness, it seemed that material being worked in the fields near an incident site, and their presence on the spot could not be suspected, both witnesses fully supporting the prosecution's version. Despite the fact that witnesses were subjected to prolonged scrutiny, nothing could be brought to the fore, nor could any doubt be raised in their evidence. The facts could not be ascertained, the names of the witnesses and the role of the accused accused of injuring the victim were mentioned by the FIA. I was, which was achieved with the help of the medical evidence. The witnesses, the complainant and the eyewitnesses are residents of the same proximity, and their acquaintance was mistakenly identified by the doctor to raise suspicion of his presence on the spot. There was no possibility of the incident, the suspect's name was in the FIR with a special role in the injury to the knife, and that role does not have any weakness, contradiction and material contradiction in the statements of the complainant and the prosecutor's witness. Was found to be identical on both material points, namely, the prosecution's witnesses at the time, date and location of the incident. At the scene of the incident, his testimony was believed, as he was not a fraudster and had no ulterior motive that he would falsely accuse the accused.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
