Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,201,420,302(b)

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

Section: 38,39,40

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 420, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Supplementary statement---Scope---FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant that unknown person committed murder of her husband by firearm---Subsequently, on the supplementary statement of son of deceased, accused was arrested and on his disclosure, complainant/widow of deceased was also arrested as co-accused---Accused narrated the scenario of crime and stated that in fact he had secretive intimacy with the wife of deceased and on her instigation, he murdered the deceased at his house---Accused had disclosed that after committing the murder of the deceased, he had thrown the pistol on his roof which was missing on the following day---Disclosure of co-accused was replica of that of the accused---Disclosure of co-accused was inadmissible in evidence, because the same was not followed by any sort of discovery or recovery---Statement/disclosure of accused could not be used against the co-accused---Record showed that except the statement of son of deceased, the rest of the prosecution witnesses were corroborative in nature and had no direct nexus with the case---Statement of witness/son of deceased showed that he had seen his mother talking to accused but at subsequent stage, he stated that his mother was innocent and he had implicated his mother on the instigation of his maternal uncle and his mother had no nexus with the case---Supplementary statement of the witness recorded by the police showed that he did not nominate his mother in the crime, however in his cross-examination he made certain disclosures which were not part of his supplementary statement and implicated his mother---At subsequent stage, he again exonerated his mother, therefore, statement of said witness was not free from doubt and required independent corroboration---Such variances led to the inference that witness was not worthy of credence, therefore his evidence could not be relied upon for…