Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),397,34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 22

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 164

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of four days in lodging FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during the commission of robbery---Record showed that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR by the wife of the deceased---Such delay had not been fully explained especially as son of complainant, who was named in the FIR was with the deceased at the time when he was shot and was in a better position to lodge the FIR immediately, yet he failed to do so for reasons best known to him---Such fact cast some suspicion on the prosecution's case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not proved---Identification of assailants during the incident doubtful--Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during the commission of robbery---Prosecution's case rested almost exclusively on the evidence of the sole eye-witness to the incident, who was real son of the deceased---Said witness stated that on 19.08.2018 at about 10.30 pm he and the deceased went to purchase cattle food on his motor bike---When they reached near a wedding hall, two robbers came on a motor bike and intercepted them and tried to rob them---On the resistance of father of said witness, one of the accused fired on his father hitting his face who fell to the ground whilst both the robbers escaped---However, it was a night time incident and there was no evidence of there being any light available at the scene of the incident---Eye-witness did not know the appellants before---Eye-witness gave no description of either of the appellants in his S.161 Cr.P.C statement which in any event was given five days after the incident which delay itself was often fatal to the prosecution case---Mother of eye-witness lodged her FIR four days later…