Section 302 (b) Qatil-Umid's testimony The benefit of the doubt was the only eyewitness complainant who was injured in the incident, the complainant stated that he could not see the faces of the accused as their faces changed. Had happened, but he could identify them by their physical structure. The complainant's statement was not given, the most supportive of the incident was the alleged incident that took place, the statement of the second star witness that he heard from the accused while the accused had confessed to his crime in front of the police officers. Such an admission of the accused was admissible under the confessional offense, but the trial court relied on the evidence to bring the accused to death when there was no evidence and probable evidence on record in this regard. The trial court did not acquit any of the accomplices, relying on the same set of evidence as the factor involved in the commission of the crime, then the location of the incident by the accused. The case was that the prosecution had failed to bring the accused out of the accused's house without any evidence, the benefit of the doubt was always to be given to the accused and not to be sustained under unclean judgment. The law, sentencing record and sentence given to the accused by the trial court were set aside. The accused were acquitted and released, in the circumstances.
