Section 2 302 (b) praised the power, saying that four of the five witnesses, in clear and unambiguous terms, said that it was the person who injured the deceased in the fireworks, without direct allegations. The complainant was originally the father of the victim, based solely on account, while other witnesses were closely linked to the deceased, who seized the possibility of replacing the murderer with any innocent person, especially But when there was nothing reasonable in the record, in defense. Which can justify that because of the enmity or other considerations of these witnesses, it was intended that all the witnesses in the ocular account designated the accused not only during the interrogation, but also during the trial, But during his trial, the trial court defense lawyer was not a legal assistant. The justification for claiming any benefit of the witness's status is that the evidence of the injured witness was within the parameters of the proof of principle, that their evidence was reliable and reliable in relation to the distance to the location of the incident, They cannot be called fatal for prosecution. The witnesses in the case had long been subjected to scrutiny, but the defense could not suppress their evidence. The medical evidence was in accordance with the evidence, the accused was also charged with the recovery of the weapons of crime, with Kalashnikov and six living bullets from the suspect's house at that location, all pieces of evidence of the accused, namely, ocular, medical and Things were in the same line of tantalizing and adorning the series with no root, under trial, under trial, after trial, for trial.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
