Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),109,148,149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant along with his two friends by firing---Case of the prosecution was structured through last seen evidence as a first clue for the involvement of accused/appellant, which was deposed by two witnesses, cousins inter se and relative of complainant---One witness was a fruit vendor and other a property dealer---One of the witnesses was simply a fruit vendor and had no hand or share in property business of other witness---Presence of said witness in the month of Ramadhan at 8.30 p.m. in town for the purpose of observing an activity of plotting was nothing but a story---Occurrence took place in the month of June and both the witnesses were not expected to be there at 8.30 p.m., that too in the month of Ramadhan when Muslims were busy in offering their Esha prayer followed by Taravih---No mosque was there in town that could justify that after offering Esha prayer said witnesses were walking from town to bank of canal which was allegedly at a distance of kilometer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Identity of the accused not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant along with his two friends by firing---In the present case, site plan did not indicate any road leading to stadium or the town---Both the witnesses neither had shown their place of presence to the police nor police had sketched or photographed that place---As per statement of one witness, they did not go to western bank of canal---No proof of light was provided on the western bank of canal---If some acquaintance of a witness with accused/appellant was conceded, he was not expected to have identified the accused from a distance with intervening canal and that too in a dark…