Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b), 392, 396, 397 & 34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 392, 396, 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dacoity with murder, robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report lodged with promptitude--Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing while committing robbery---Record showed that the statement of the complainant which became FIR was recorded just ten minutes after the incident as the complainant had chased down the accused and apprehended him with members of the public just after the robbery and murder of the deceased--Police recorded statement of complainant under S.154, Cr.P.C, on the spot and formal FIR was lodged one hour later---Thus, the FIR was lodged with extreme promptitude and left no time for the complainant to cook up a false case against the accused in league with the police or anyone else---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 392, 396, 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dacoity with murder, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing while committing robbery---Eye-witness, who was owner of the scrap shop which was robbed and brother of deceased chased the armed person on his motorbike and hit the armed person who fell down and as he grabbed him he shot the eye-witness in his knee after which the mohalla people grabbed hold of the person who fired at him and started beating him---Police arrived and arrested the person who made the shot and his pistol was handed over to the police---Said witness was not a chance witness as he was owner of the shop which was robbed and as such was a natural witness---Admittedly, said witness was brother of the deceased however since he had no enmity or ill will towards the accused thus, there was no reason to discount his evidence---Thus, the evidence of the eye-witness was found to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring and was to be believed especially with regard to the correct identification of the accused as the person who robbed the shop with a co-accused and shot and murdered the deceased and also shot and injured the eye-witness---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.