Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.------.---Ss. 302, 324, 337-D, 394 & 34---.---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---.---Qatl-i-amd; attempt to commit qatl-i-amd; Jaifah; voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery; common intention---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Benefit of doubt---.---Power of court to record statements and confessions---.---Recovery, when inconsequential---.---Benefit of doubt to proclaimed offender---.---Complainant alleged that three accused persons, in aid with his brother-in-law accused (since acquitted), who was present at the house at time of occurrence, entered into his house with the intention of robbing them of their valuables, and while doing so they had murdered his wife and daughter and injured the others present in the house including the complainant---.---Prior to present private complaint, right after the occurrence, said accused (since acquitted) had already lodged FIR against the said intruders/accused without their names by giving their description---.---Trial Court, having acquitted the co-accused, convicted present accused person and sentenced him to death, to undergo imprisonment for ten years and life imprisonment along with payment of fine and compensation---.---Entire prosecution case against the accused persons rested on the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses---.---Names of all the accused persons had been brought on record by the complainant of the FIR/ accused of present private complaint through his supplementary statement---.---Complainant/ injured witness of the private complaint, after thoughtful deliberations, had developed the case so as to implicate the said acquitted accused/complainant of the FIR---.---Complainant had made dishonest improvements in his statement before the court---.---Prosecution witnesses, during their statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C, had narrated entirely a different mode and manner of the occurrence and had not supported the prosecution version in respect of mode, manner and description of the accused persons---.---Complainant had filed the private complaint after lapse of about nine months---.---Dispute over possession of the case property existed between the complainant…