Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of eight hours and fifty minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of paternal nephew of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the incident took place on 12.08.2019 at about 02.00 pm but the same was reported to the police at 10.50 pm with an un-explained delay of eight hours and fifty minutes---Nothing had been brought on record by the prosecution to justify such delay, in particular, when the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was just four kilometers---Thus, inference could be drawn that the FIR was lodged after due deliberation, consultation and maneuvering the prosecution witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Ghulam Abbas and another v. The State and another 2021 SCMR 23 and Zafar v.The State and others 2018 SCMR 326 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eyewitnesses at the venue not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of paternal nephew of the complainant by firing---As per prosecution, the incident had taken place inside the house of appellant, as such presence of the acclaimed eye-witnesses at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time was highly questionable---Reason explained by the eye-witnesses that after lapse of 15/20 minutes when the deceased did not turn back from the house of appellant, they became worried and rushed towards the house of appellant did not appeal to reason---Admittedly, incident had taken place on the occasion of Eid-ul-Adha and in our social set up, usually male friends spend whole day with each other and even till late night and no surprise is ever thrown by the elders qua their absence from the home---As such reasons of the eye-witnesses for their attraction at the venue of occurrence was not justified at all---Another aspect which raised serious question qua presence of the eye-witnesses was that the complainant while lodging the FIR in unequivocal terms alleged that the appellant made a single fire shot at the chest of deceased, whereas,…