Sections 302 (b), 149, 324, 353, 186 and 148 convictions, common purpose, attempt to prosecute, assault or criminal force to prevent a public servant from performing his duties; In the interrupting act, the riot was not designated in the FIR for appreciation of evidence, its identity has no role to be attributed to the accused at the time of the parade, it cannot be ascertained whether these two. None of the unidentified suspects escaped on the spot, or he was among the three suspects who fired ineffectively at the police party at the time of the incident. Or it was alleged that the person who carried the fatal fire shot, on the victim's complainant's head, did not participate in the identification parade of the accused, the accused complainant was not known before, for this Was to take part in the identification process. Parade to identify the accused, therefore, it was not safe to rely on the complainant's evidence The story of circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession presented by the prosecution's witness was not dependable, in the absence of marriage the alleged rifle recovered. To no avail, the rifle prosecution reportedly failed to prove its case against the accused. Under the veil of doubt, the unanimous verdict passed by the trial court was punished and the accused was convicted. The sentence was pronounced and he was acquitted of the charge. And he was released, under conditions
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
