Efforts to respect Section 4 324, 7 337 F (V) and has 34 murder, which led to confusion, were attributed to the suspect in the effective firing role, while the role was attributed to commanding \ Lalcara. The accused was assigned, on the basis of compromise has already been acquitted; because of both the complainant and the accused being co-villagers, no question of misidentification and misinterpretation or substitution was created; six firearms were placed on the injured complainant. Weapons wounds, which could not be caused by any friendly hands, were sent to the forensic science laboratory for analysis, report, and serology. According to Tee's report, it was human blood and material pieces of evidence belonging to the same group, the incident was established at the same location as it was revealed. The complainant in his report stated that the injured complainant and other prosecution witnesses, who were charged with firing the complainant, were in critical position and their cross-examination was conducted on the lens, and they were on standby. Nothing worthwhile for the defense can be taken out of their mouths, which can lead to suspicion in the prosecution's case, a statement from the injured witness, minor contradictions or contradictions that cannot be made aside. The isolation statement of the injured persons, verified by medical evidence, in the case of injury, was sufficient to record the sentence; if this were true, the complainant would have presented the original and factual account of the incident to the eye witness. Source and was supported by medical charges. The fugitive, who had been absconding for about 3 months, did not provide a plausible explanation for his fugitive action. A.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
