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---Matter reported to the police with promptitude---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Out Patient Department chits collected from the hospital disclosed the time of arrival of the complainant to the hospital as 03:51 a.m., whereas that of the appellant, as 03:55 a.m.---Medical Officer also confirmed the time of arrival of the injured to the hospital and also the time of examination of the injured, so the quick succession of events had left no ambiguity in telling that the matter was promptly reported and that injured from both sides were brought to the hospital at one and the same time---Scribe further explained that as the injured were lying on the spot, so he deemed it necessary to rescue the injured to the hospital to save their lives---Scribe displayed a natural conduct, as in the attending circumstances of the present case, the priority was to save the precious lives, so he instead of waiting for report on the spot, shifted the injured to the hospital and after due satisfaction, the complainant reported the matter---Dead body of deceased was examined by the Medical Officer and even the post-mortem examination did confirm that the incident occurred at the stated time and that the deceased and injured were shifted to the hospital hurriedly---Appeal to the extent of the appellant "SR" was partially allowed and instead he was convicted and sentenced under S.302(b) P.P.C, to life imprisonment and the remaining portion of the judgment to his was extent was left intact. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Place of occurrence proved---Accused charged were for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the present case, the house of the complainant was situated near the place of incident and on the other, the complainant himself got injured in the transaction, so his presence in the hospital was neither disputed nor the same could be…