Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),337A(i),337A(ii),337A(iii),337L(2)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii) & 337-L(2)---Qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, shajjah-i-hashimah, causing hurt--Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused-appellants were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and causing injuries to the complainant and his brother through sticks and pickaxe blows---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant, injured and an eye-witness--Complainant reiterated the same facts as advanced by him in his initial report in shape of Murasila followed by FIR---In his cross-examination, complainant offered a very natural and straightforward narration of the occurrence---Likewise, the injured had clarified the presence of another eye-witness of the occurrence in terms that on the day of occurrence, he along with his father were evacuating sand in their landed property for construction of mosque, when in the meanwhile, eye-witness came there and started gossip/conversation with them---Both the said witnesses were cross-examined at a substantial length; however, they remained consistent on most of the material particulars of the case---Trend of cross-examinations of the eye-witnesses revealed that the mode and manner of the occurrence, venue of crime i.e. landed property of complainant-party, presence of eye-witness on the spot and motive part of the case in terms of excavation of sand, had been specified and confirmed from mouths of said witnesses---Same was the case with statement of another eye-witness of the occurrence, who was cousin of complainant---Presence of said witness on the spot could not be doubted and viewed with a suspicion because of deposition of injured, who had validated and affirmed presence of that witness on the spot of occurrence, even prior to happening of the instant occurrence---Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and both the parties being co-villagers were familiar with each other, hence, there was no apprehension of mistaken identity or substitution of accused by complainant or other eyewitnesses---Neither any dishonest improvements appeared in their statements nor…