Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154,161

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Preliminary investigation conducted before the registration of FIR---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Eye-witnesses besides were related to the deceased and inter se were residents of the place, situated at a distance of four kilometers from the place of occurrence hence, their deposition required strict scrutiny---Though, as per prosecution's case, the crime report was registered by the complainant within two hours of the occurrence at 07.00 p.m. through a written application yet the fact remained that during crossexamination, complainant maintained that the police recorded the statements of the witnesses before the FIR---Complainant volunteered that she did not know about the investigation---Eye-witness also endorsed that statement by stating that his statement was recorded before the registration of FIR---Prima facie the Investigation Officer held preliminary inquiry before registration of the FIR that created doubt about the veracity of the contents as well as timing of registration of crime report---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Inordinate delay in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted at 07.00 a.m. on 27.10.2016 though as per Medical Officer, the dead body was received in the hospital at 09.30p.m. on 26.10.2016---Medical Officer conceded that he was on duty from 08.00p.m. on 26.10.2016 to 08.00 a.m., the next morning---Neither the said Medical Officer nor any of the witnesses gave any explanation with regard to the delay in…