Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,164

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

Section: 129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by complainant in his statement---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant--Complainant while reporting the matter charged the accused for firing at them, but in his Court statement, he made improvements and explained the circumstances in a different manner---Report told that on reaching to the spot, the accused stopped the motorcar, they de-boarded and were fired at, but in his examination-in-chief he explained that he was first targeted thereafter the deceased was fired at---Said witness maintained silence in respect of the firing over the female eye-witness, so the same was in conflict with what was reported---Improvement was not only conscious, but dishonest as well, that too, with the only attempt to establish presence of injured on the spot---In his Court statement, the complainant disclosed that after receiving firearm injury, he with help of the eye-witness, shifted the deceased then injured to the motorcar and thereafter, he drove the motorcar towards the hospital where he reported the matter, but the report lacked the explanation---Said facts were introduced after the lapse of time, that too, when the trial commenced---Injured received a firearm injury on his chest, whether after receiving such an injury, the complainant was able to drive and was capable to shift the deceased from spot to the motorcar---Once injured confirmed that due to severe injury, he failed to notice that what injuries were caused to the deceased, then with the same injury, how did he shift the deceased to the motorcar and how he managed to drive to the hospital and reported the incident---No denial to that fact that the complainant claimed to have received a firearm injury in the same episode, but at the same time, the improvements he made had questioned his truthfulness, so the stamp of injury on his body would hardly be a circumstance to be pressed into service for holding the appellant responsible for the tragic murder of…