Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,396,149

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Section: VI,17(4)

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7,6(m),6(n)

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 25.13

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 396 & 149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, murder with dacoity, unlawful assembly, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--Withholding source of information regarding names and identities of accused--Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party; the brother of complainant was hit and died during the dacoity---Complainant claimed that about two/four days prior thereto the main occurrence, he and his two brothers had the opportunity to see accused GS along with four unknowns--One of brothers of complainant was the deceased, his other brother had not been produced to state in Court about that fact, therefore, complainant became the sole person of that first episode to describe and prove as to the reconnaissance by the said accused and the exposure of their names and identity to him---Admittedly, all the four unknowns were strangers to complainant but he nominated them in the occurrence relying upon his queries from other persons of the town and claimed having knowledge about their identity by name---Complainant was bound to prove source of his knowledge of revealing the names and identity of said unknown accused but he did not opt to disclose even when asked in crossexamination, therefore, withholding his such knowledge gave rise to the mystery, making his statement regarding their nominations in the FIR as inadmissible in evidence to be culminated as hearsay---Role of Investigating Officer was to collect the evidence, he had not uttered single word about the first episode nor collected any evidence as to how the names of the unknowns were exposed to the first informer, hence nomination of the said unknown in the FIR remained a mystery and inadmissible in evidence---Moreover, it was in evidence that FIR had been registered prior to the claimed arrest of the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 396 & 149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd,…