Sections 302, 324, 337A (i) and 34 Qatal Ahmed, the attempt to commit it after the murder, which was suspected to be confidential, was appreciated by the joint intention evidence, two eyewitnesses to the benefit of the suspect. The prosecution's case was not supported. The complainant's version was also not affecting trust because of the enmity confessed by the prosecution's evidence, and suspected that both eyewitnesses had resigned from their Section 161, CRPC The statement also called the private adviser an opponent when he did not support the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of the weapons of the crime; the accused had established the "alibi" request, at the wedding ceremony elsewhere at the time of the incident. The accused could not have lied in this case by demonstrating his presence. In the light of this rule, the trial court was not allowed to punish and punish the culprits, which were not sustainable in the law, leading to doubts in the same situation. The prudent mind was sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused, not as a matter of concession, but in the matter of truth the accused was acquitted, under circumstances \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
