Section 302/458/34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A), on the morning of the murder, a joint intention appeal against the evil FIR, though the instant appeal was filed. , But it has also been proven that the case has been registered. The investigating officer said after proper consideration and consultation that he had been informed by the complainant about his presence, but the name of the assailant was not disclosed, which would mean that the police had information. At the time, the name of the assailant was in it. The complainant's mind had improved his statement recorded in court. Another case before the police did not come as the prosecutor stated that eyewitnesses were inconsistent in their statements, telling many people in the area to gather on the spot. Was gone, but the prosecution was not. Any witnesses cited at the location such an aspect of the prosecution made the story suspicious. The prosecutor tried to improve his case, causing serious suspicion in the story, to the benefit of the accused. At the time of filing the FIR and the time the body was sent for post mortem, it was the same incident which raised serious doubts about the time of the incident and 14 days after the incident. The alleged weapons were recovered. And the history of the weapons retrieval was overwritten, from which the retrieval memo did not disclose the number of weapons;
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013
