Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 , 149

(a)   Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatli-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Injured complainant was accompanying all the three deceased on the day of occurrence at the relevant time---Complainant was the victim and the sole survivor of the incident---Complainant got injured with fire shots and his testimony as an injured was of vital importance in the case---Eye-witness admittedly was the brother of one of the deceased persons and close relative of others---Fact of complainant not seening eye-witness before the happening of the incident appeared to be true---Reason was that had the complainant seen him before the incident, he would have surely nominated him as the eye-witness---Close relationship of said witness was undeniably a factor that mattered regardless of the fact whether he was introduced as a chance witness or a natural eyewitness---No doubt, eye-witness rushed to complainant soon after the happening of the incident and managed to send information of the incident to the village---However, eye-witness correctly pointed out the crime scene to the Investigating Officer---Nothing was on record that the complainant might have tutored eye-witness about the mode and manner of the incident---As the testimony of eye-witness was found natural and confidence inspiring, therefore, the mere fact that his name did not figure in the FIR was no ground to discard his statement---Even otherwise, if the statement of said eye-witness was kept out of consideration, still the direct testimony of injured complainant was there---Statement of complainant was found natural, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---Deposition of complainant found complete support from the medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence, which was not convincingly shattered by the defence---Not the quantity, but the quality of evidence mattered---Even a single testimony of an eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction if it rings of truth---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rahat Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 206 and Muhammad Sadiq v.