Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witness, evidence of---Reliance---Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant, due to which nephew of the complainant was hit and died whereas the complainant remained safe---As per record, it was fully established that the complainant was the only witness accompanying the deceased at the relevant time---Complainant was a natural witness---Mere close relationship of a witness was not fatal to the prosecution case---All that must be seen is the intrinsic worth of evidence of an eye-witness, no matter how close a relative of the complainant party he may be---Intrinsic worth of the evidence would come from its being natural, true and confidence inspiring---Presence of the complainant on the crime scene was not shattered--Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however due to some mitigating circumstance, conviction was maintained but death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed with such modification in sentence.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Natural witness---Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant, due to which nephew of the complainant was hit and died whereas the complainant remained safe---Record showed that the complainant was not asked any question under cross-examination that his visit to his fields at the relevant time was not practiced as a part of traditional behaviour or way of life of the local community---Investigating Officer also collected no such evidence, nor was he cross-examined in that connection---Evidence demonstrated that the village of the complainant party was situated at a distance of about 02 kilometers, a short distance, indeed---Mere fact that people would not go out at that point of time and that the complainant party had gone out could not be seen as an act casting doubt on the very happening of the incident---Then, question would arise as to why the complainant would charge the…