In Articles 2 & 2 and Q 34 of the case, two persons were charged with murder for the purpose of defining the joint intention evidence, but the self-complainant with no particular character was an eyewitness to the incident, but The prosecutor's witness told her about the incident. Was not supporting the ocular version of the prosecution's witnesses, pressing on the two wounds of the complainant as well as the two eye witnesses had raised serious doubts about the credibility of the witnesses, the prosecutor's witness said. The firing was done, but no blank recovered from it. The scene of the house did not appear in the manner and manner of the prosecution's indictment. Thus, there is no reliance on molecular evidence that the allegedly recovered spaces remain in the enclosure for a long time, and that they are not sent to the forensic science laboratory to detect that they were fired with a single weapon. Otherwise, even those who produced this weapon under questions before the investigating officer were not presented to the trial court forensic science laboratory report, although positive, the prosecution had no benefit in the situation. After being denied, no conviction could be charged on the basis of the prosecution's loneliness, the medical evidence and the motions did not confirm the prosecution's version, the ocular testimony was not credible, as was the case with the eye and medical evidence. In the face of great contradiction, the prosecution failed to prove. The accused was charged with a crime beyond any shadow of suspicion, punishment and punishment, id., They were acquitted of the charges,
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
