Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),201

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

Section: 129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In examination-in-chief, one of the prosecution witnesses had admitted that he had not seen the appellant/convict while firing at the deceased---Said witness had also exonerated the presence of eye-witness which was his own brother---Even otherwise, eye-witness had stated that he along with the deceased were going to the house of his paternal uncle, while his brother/witness had recorded contradictory statement to that of eye-witness, as he had stated that he was coming from the house of his paternal uncle---Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances coupled with the conduct of eyewitness and his contradictory statement with his brother/witness, High Court reached the conclusion that the occurrence was an un-witnessed one and nobody was present at the time of murder of the deceased and as such, it would cast serious doubts on the case of the prosecution, benefit of which must be given to the appellant/convict---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Credibility of FIR doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence had allegedly taken place in the presence of two witnesses, who managed the shifting of dead body of the deceased to hospital, while the report was not recorded by them rather they waited for the arrival of brother of the deceased---No doubt, the complainant had stated in his statement that the occurrence, besides others, had been witnessed…