- The story narrated by the witness before the Police is quite different from the one stated before the Court and improved his statement — It creates a serious doubt — Why he did not attribute the intentional murder to the accused — He stated in the F.I.R. that he had no enmity with any person and his son died by chance due to aerial firing, but subsequently he narrated a new story which creates a serious doubt. Arshad Mahmood v. Raja M. Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (C)
- It was the legal and moral duty of Raja Nasibullah Khan, to lodge F.I.R. if the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by him in examination-in-chief — Why the dead body was buried without post-mortem and why the accused was not nominated by the father of the deceased — It creates a serious doubt — It is the basic duty of prosecution to prove the case beyond any doubt. Arshad Mahmood v. Raja Muhammad Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (D)
- A new story was introduced in the Court by stating that on the next day, the brother and wife of the accused went to the house of the complainant and gave threat that if any report is lodged then they will have to face the consequences — On that threat the blood stained clothes of the deceased were washed — If this story would have been true then it would have narrated as such before the Police — The accused, his brother and his wife would have also been arrested — It creates serious doubt on the story narrated before the Court. Arshad M. v. Raja M. Asghar 2008 SCR 345 (E)
- Benefit of doubt always goes to the accused — It is the legal duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. Arshad Mahmood v. R. M. Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (K)
error: Content is protected !!