Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 324, 34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 31 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 01.11.2017 at about 2:00 p.m. in a Mauza situated at a distance of 4-kilometers from Police Station---Law regarding that occurrence was set into motion through written application of complainant presented before Police Officer on 02.11.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. in the police station which was transformed into formal FIR---From this aspect, it manifested that the matter was reported to police with the delay of about 31 hours---Nothing was found to explain such an unwarranted delay in the registration of FIR---Prosecution though made an endeavour to cover this delay by portraying that firstly deceased in injured condition was taken to DHQ Hospital, for the purpose of medical treatment from where he was referred to General Hospital, L-(Lahore), thus the delay in reporting the matter to the police was ignorable---However, in this regard, it was noticed that when deceased in injured condition was shifted to DHQ Hospital, he was given medical treatment by Medical Officer and according to Medical Officer, the injured was brought by Head Constable on 01.11.2017 at about 3:20 p.m.---To bring the injured to the hospital by a Police Official showed that the matter had already come in the knowledge of the police within 1-hour and 20-minutes---However, it was not the case of prosecution that the complainant tried to get recorded his statement to police who refused to reduce it into writing to set the criminal law into motion---Apart from the statement of injured who gave the medical history to Medical Officer regarding the criminal assault by two unknown persons till filing of complaint, no version was recorded by the complainant to police while nominating the accused with specification---Claim of the prosecution was that two eye-witnesses saw the incident and they informed it to the complainant---Question in such circumstances arose that what made the…