Articles 2 (2 (b), 7 30l and Q 34 of the prosecution, the execution of the trespass, the definition of common intention evidence was charged with no motive and the deceased were in civil litigation with each other). It was shown that the identity of the suspects was suspected, the benefit should go to the accused as well - and the only important aspect of the case was the fact that the prosecution's version was sufficient to discredit the accused, and the prosecution to punish the accused for acquittal. The statement was not performed in the manner and manner and it was suspected that witnesses allegedly had witnesses to the incident or not. With the best evidence available, withholding, a negative indication can be drawn against the prosecutor, only the sealing of the wounds on the prosecutor's witness will not prove the presence of the aforesaid witness at the relevant time, and such truth. The assailants, who were shown 300 yards away and they were in the ditch, were not identified from that distance, the doctor, who examined the victim, examined them in this case. Was not made, but an employee was presented who confirmed the report, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the prosecutor was unable to prove the accused's guilt. That is, the accused's conviction can not be sustained, was convicted by the trial court and has been expanded in terms of punishment. And he got rid of the accusations leveled against him
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
