Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 337-H(2), 34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rashness or negligence that endanger human life or personal safety, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Ocular account of the incident was primarily furnished by three eye-witnesses; the complainant and two other witnesses---Presence of the three eye-witnesses was established beyond a reasonable doubt as the incident happened outside of their own home where they all were present at some short distance from the deceased---Said witnesses perfectly aligned with each other from minor details to major events such as the appellants' identities---Said witnesses demonstrated a consistent and harmonious narrative regarding all salient aspects of the incident, as well as the collateral details---Cross-examination proved inconsequential, yielding no adverse information from the witnesses beyond a series of vehemently denied suggestions---Minor contradictions did exist in the testimonies of witnesses, however, none of those went to the subject matter i.e. the factum of shooting and death of the deceased, as such they were immaterial and did not significantly impact the prosecution's case---Said variations could be attributed to lapse of memory or confusion induced by lengthy cross-examination---Not every discrepancy rises to the level of a material contradiction and therefore, minor inconsistencies or embellishments should not be ground for rejecting the prosecution's evidence in its entirety---Contradictions would be natural over the course of the trial as firstly one could not be expected to know the smallest details by one's naked eye during a situation only those with a nerve could witness---Despite the relationship of the complainant and witnesses with the deceased, their evidence, after careful consideration, was found trustworthy---Mere relationship with the deceased did not invalidate otherwise trustworthy evidence---Even otherwise, evidence was found to be untenable that the witnesses would go as far as implicating the appellants falsely in the…