The contention of the prosecution's witnesses was found to be contradictory to the benefit of a joint intention appeal against the acquittal of criminal threats under Section 6506B and Cri 34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A). The RR did not state that the accused had a pistol on his head, but he was also charged in his FIR, in which case a case was registered 23 days after the alleged incident, for which The complainant's husband was not presented with a plausible explanation; her statement did not say that the accused had attacked her. And that his wife / complainant was also beaten by a female accused. And the accused placed a pistol on the complainant's head as he alleged in his statement that serious suspicions had arisen in the case of the prosecutor, in view of the apparent contradictions, in the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses. Was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of fact, because there were many circumstances which raised doubts about the prosecution, the accused could not be deprived of the benefit of the doubt, merely because It was the case that raised the suspect in the prosecution's story.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
