Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Eye-witness account not proved---Accused was charged that she along with her co-accused persons committed murder of the niece of complainant---Admittedly, complainant and a witness were not the eyewitnesses of the occurrence---Accused persons informed the complainant and witness about the occurrence whereupon they reached the spot and reported the matter to the police---Said witnesses did not see the appellant and his coaccused while committing the murder of deceased---Furthermore, the role played by the appellant and her co-accused in the incident in issue had not been mentioned in the FIR---Prosecution case was mainly based upon the testimony of daughter of deceased---Claim of said witness was that on the fateful night she perceived the shrieks of her mother and saw that co-accused was tying her mother with a rope; that appellant poured petrol on her mother and thereafter she set her mother into fire---Name of said witness was not mentioned in the FIR---It was not mentioned in the FIR that the said witness was present at the time of incident---Said witness was introduced in this case at some subsequent stage in order to strengthen the prosecution case against the appellant and her co-accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Delay of about two months in lodging the private complaint---Consequential---Accused was charged that she along with her coaccused persons committed murder of the niece of complainant---Complainant instituted a private complaint with a delay of about two months after the occurrence in which he introduced daughter of deceased as eye-witness of the occurrence---Prosecution had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning thereby that the private complaint had been filed after due deliberations and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and…