Section 2 302 (b) appreciation of the power The suspected benefit of the evidence was taken by the delay of nine hours in reporting the matter to the police, while the distance between the police station and the police station was three or four kilometers, which the complainant had According to the cover in thirty minutes and the FIR listed with unanticipated delays, the sanctity of it will be gone. Due to the complainant's conduct of not reporting the crime, serious doubts arose about his presence at the time the crime was proved, the complainant was an opportunity witness, the resident of the other place and because of this The description of the incident at the scene of the incident was not accepted, no source of light was mentioned in the FIR; in the circumstances, it was of very questionable quality, nor would the amount of evidence determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It had no purpose. In particular, the three co-accused of murdering the accused, who were charged and tried together with the accused, were acquitted, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and said that they were being prosecuted by the complainant. Was not acquitted or the State's testimony of the witness would not be admissible. A set of suspects, though another set of suspects facing the same case, was rejected, though it would receive some independent support. In the event that the material details of the case are not due to any sovereignty, the accused who has been charged with the accused will be entitled to acquit him as the accused recovered 30 bore pistols on the spot of the accused. Was not in special possession, depending on whether the defendant was charged with criminal trespass.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
