Sections 302 and 148 of the conviction, the benefit of the suspect in the definition of evidence, were not consistent with the findings found in the medical evidence, and directly contradicted when such contradiction was brought to the record. Had the duty of Neither the defendant nor the accused, who should have benefited from such contradictions, alleged evidence of eyewitness testimony was not consistent at key points; contradictions in eyewitness statements raised suspicion that either was That the witnesses were not present with the accused, or that the crime was not committed as the prosecution alleged that the enmity between the parties existed on a plot but that no independent witness was presented by the prosecution. According to R, other people standing in nearby areas also used to take care of the helicopters and watch the suspects escape. Are Of the free witnesses, no body was examined by the prosecution by the prosecution. Instead, those who were closely related to the victim came to the fore when the eyewitness testimony court would not place the conviction of any accused on the testimony of mere and only interested witnesses, unless such evidence was given to anyone else. Fraud is not found through independent and untrue evidence. The deficiency in the present case states that interested witnesses cannot be relied upon, in which case a delay of fifteen hours in filing an FIR was not considered plausible. It can be said that the FIR was filed after deliberation and consultation. And every possibility of making false accusations of the accused due to enmity between the parties
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
