The joint intention appeal against Section 666 and Pro 34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) confession, the definition of evidence at the time of the alleged incident and report between the alleged incident and the report without any plausible explanation. And may have been eaten by the complainant in consultation. The injured complainant was examined 10 minutes before his report; two versions were presented by a medical officer, while the other by the complainant and the prosecution witnesses. Which of the two versions was correct, drowned in mystery, who, through his complaint, deliberately and deliberately felt the injured complainant's reforms, which had lost his credibility? And the identification cost was not spilled on the spot, nor did the complainant's blood-stained clothing be obtained by the Inquisition Officer's skids and the peaks allegedly used in the commission of the crime, however they were recovered. Was not made, either by the indirect or indirect occupation of the accused by the prosecution witness, who made the general statement of the incident, did not establish his presence on the spot with the complainant, Was a real nephew, against natural human behavior, because his real uncle had beaten him. He became a silent spectator even though the accused and he were present on the spot, without any effort, he was rescued from the clutches of the accused, both the complainant and the prosecution witness who were closely associated, he was interested and hated the accused. Tried to improve its version with unreliable improvements. They made points
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
