Under Article 2 (2 (b), 4 Qat and Q 34), kidnapping or abduction for murder, taking advantage of suspicion of evidence of common intention, which was abroad at the time of the alleged incident, did not claim that the deceased was the accused. He was last seen in the company of the accused, but claimed that he had, at last, obtained information about obtaining evidence from his relative, unable to rely on the complaint. The complainant named the accused in the FIR only on suspicion, his son's body was not enough to identify the photographer only They had to cite that the dead body, which was buried, was the only witness of his son, which the prosecutor examined, to establish the last seen evidence, stating that in his presence, the deceased was He was last seen leaving with the suspects, but said the witness remained silent for an indefinite period despite the danger to John's life. The witness's behavior made his testimony suspicious. Confessed to his crime and was ready to submit articles, but the investigating officer did not consider it necessary to record his confession, or less Z approached the magistrate with a written request. For this purpose, the investigating officer and the conscience did not cooperate with each other in the manner of keeping the articles secure; the prosecution had failed to make all contacts properly and neatly with each other. And failing to make a series of irrelevant contacts of the situation, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances, because no evidence of the circumstances
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
