Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 392 & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of more than two hours in reporting the matter to the Police, had not been properly explained---Such delay spoke volumes, especially when the complainant claimed that he had witnessed the occurrence, and was not having any handicap to furnish information to the Police---Accused was not nominated in the FIR, and only his body features and age were mentioned therein---Prosecution witnesses mentioned in the FIR, claiming to have seen the occurrence, had not joined identification parade---Complainant who joined identification parade, had not appeared during the course of trial---Other witness introduced by the prosecution for test identification parade, was not mentioned in the crime report---Identification parade was not carried out in pursuance of the settled law, and also in sheer violation to the instructions enunciated in the High Court Rules and Orders---Two prosecution witnesses, who were real brothers of one of the deceased, were residents of place, which was at a distance of 160-Kms from the place of occurrence---Complainant, was not produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it---Other injured prosecution witness had not supported the prosecution version---Said witness had stated before the Trial Court that accused was not assailant, who inflicted injuries on his person---Statements of the prosecution witnesses, did not meet the required standard to be taken into consideration in the case involving capital punishment---Prosecution witnesses, who failed to establish their presence at the time of occurrence, at the most were chance witnesses; evidence of such a witness required strong/independent corroboration, which was missing in the case---Prosecution, had failed to establish its case on ocular account and medical evidence---Investigating Officer had admitted that the memo of pointation was prepared by him, without recovery of any article---Said memo carried no evidentiary value as same was hit by Arts.39/40 of…