GUL BAHAR ALIAS GULBO ALIAS ALI GOHAR versus STATE
Section 2302 / Q 34 Qatim Amul, Appreciating the Evidence Benefit of the Suspicion No clear action was taken against any of the accused persons at the time of the complaint and the prosecution's witness had improved their evidence at the trial. Both witnesses were residents of the village, which was about 16/17 km away from the scene of the incident where the people were so far away from the incident at night, a prosecution witness confessed. The victim was by his own, while the deceased was his brother-in-law, Syed said that the witness had been a maternal uncle for about two months and that he suspected the facts. Neither the witness nor the investigating officer were present, nor were the witnesses present, nor did they challenge the accused, nor did they attempt to lift the barricade to save him. Informing the deceased or the complainant of the accused being injured, the presence of both witnesses at the scene of the incident raised doubts about the prosecution case, the improvement made by the prosecution in these circumstances also raised doubts. That there was evidence of a witness. There is a substantial situation in the present case, which has raised suspicion about the prosecution case and sentenced mere prospects and speculators to guilt after five days. Could not be recorded, and the prosecutor had to prove his case beyond any limits. The shadow of a suspect, who failed to prove the prosecution in the present case, was acquitted and released, under conditions
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
