Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,324,337-F(iv)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342,410,417,417(2A)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302, 324, 337-F(iv) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing Mudihah, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Two injured prosecution witnesses had been abandoned by the prosecution for no good reason, which amounted to withholding of best evidence---Complainant, brother of the deceased, was also inimical towards accused---Due to blood relationship, status of the complainant could not be excluded from the category of interested witness---In order to bring the case out of the scope of general rule, the evidence of the interested witness was to be scrutinized with great care and caution---Complainant had made certain dishonest improvements in his cross-examination just to bring in line his story with the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case---Contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, had created doubts about the occurrence that same had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the complainant---Once a witness was found telling lie on one material aspect of the case, then ordinarily he/she should not be believed with regard to other aspect of the case, unless the testimony given was fully corroborated by strong independent corroboration, which was lacking in the present case---General role of firing had been attributed to accused at the injured prosecution witnesses, but no evidence had been brought to prove the same---Injured prosecution witnesses had not supported the version of the prosecution---Both complainant and prosecution witness had failed to prove the individual participation of each of the accused persons in the crime---Ocular evidence was also in contradiction with medical evidence---No crime empty had been recovered and taken into possession from the place assigned to accused in the site plan---Accused though had absconded, however the prosecution could not take any premium from abscondence of accused, when eye-witnesses had not established their presence at the spot, and their testimony had been disbelieved being full of doubts and material…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492