Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,393,34

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

Section: 22

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 393 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in lodging the FIR---Plausibly explained---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused tried to snatch mobile phone from the deceased/grand maternal son of complainant and on his resistance, they opened straight fires upon the deceased, due to which he died---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one day---Said delay had largely been explained by the deceased being transferred between hospitals where he died on arrival at the Hospital and then the body being taken back to Medical Center for legal formalities and post mortem which was not allowed by the complainant's side who immediately took the body for burial from the Medical Center before lodging the FIR---Main concern was to save the life of the deceased who was seriously injured at the scene of the crime as opposed to lodging the FIR---Fact that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons also gave further weight to the fact that the complainant was not trying to falsely implicate any one---As such, the slight delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case---Although it was found that the delay in lodging the FIR had been reasonably explained the fact that the Police Station was only 3-km away from the wardat put the Court to some caution--Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 393 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-iamd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Identification parade---No description of accused given by eye-witness before identification parade---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused tried to snatch mobile phone from the deceased/grand maternal son of complainant and on his resistance, they opened straight fires upon the deceased, due to which he died--Eye-witness, who was related to the deceased, was a shop keeper whose shop was allegedly robbed by the appellant and…