Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302/34

Peal Code (XLV of 1860)  S. 302/34 [Murdercase]Appreciation of evidenceDeceased receiving 12 bullet injuries but allegedly covering a distance of 1015 yards and hoisting himself on tonga unassisted by any one, going unaided to Doctor's clinic when reaching hospitalDeceased in view of type of injuries received by him not likely to have been able to undertake such physical exertions on his ownDeceased in view of injuries received sure to have been in a shock if not altogether unconsciousDoctor stating: "patient was not drowsy but he used to close his eyes after some time" meaning thereby patient being not in full control of his faculties Impossible to believe patient having got recorded details of occurrence in so precise manner as not to omit any necessary and relevant detail, such as, type of arm carried by each one of accused appellant, names of eyewitnesses and of others owing to whom unfortunate episode in first place triggeredEvidence regarding recording of dying declaration as given by doctors arid other witnesses conflicting in material aspectsUsual certificate obtained by Police regarding patient having been in senses not obtained before recording of dying declaration but appended subsequently Evidence of Ballistic Expert revealing deceased having been shot from one or more than one weapon of same calibre and such weapon being a '32 bore pistol but one of accused. alleged to have used his rifle Type of injuries received by deceased revealing such work having been of only one manNo evidence on record, however, showing as to which one of three accused caused such injuries to deceasedNo option, in circumstances, held, left but to hold prosecution having failed to bring home its case against any one of appellantsEvidence of eyewitness full of contradictions, omissions as well as improvementsSuch witness also a personal servant of deceasedAccused youngmen and inexperienced making themselves scarce on finding themselves named for murderAbscondence in absence of any other evidence against accused, however, of no avail to prosecutionAppeal allowed.[Abscondence]. Date of hearing : 28th April, 1980. G. SAMAR SHAH, J.Appellants Muhammad Umar…