Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

(a) Evidence  Foot-prints-Evidence of foot-track-Considered a weak type of evidence-Foot-prints of accused arrested after considerable time, not likely to be remembered by trackers-Foot-track evidence suffering from infirmities and improbabilities-Held, can hardly inspire con fidence.-[Expert evidence]. Ranga Singh and another v. Emperor 96 I C 1926 Lab. 498 ; Ganesh Gogoi and another v. State A I R 1955 Assam 51; Balija Pullayya v. Crown A I R 1941 Mad. 88; Saleh v. Emperor 42 1 C 129 Lab. 1917 and Gurdit Singh v. Emperor 4 I C 941 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder-Evidence-Recovery of crime weapon (pistol) Such evidence, without corroboration, not sufficient by itself to warrant conviction of accused on charge of murder-Recovery evidence suffering from flaws of material kind-Held, hardly worthy of credence to connect accused with commission of crime.-[Evidence-Recovery]. (c) Penal, Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder-Evidence of recovery, foot-track evidence and motive not established against accused-Conviction and sentence set aside.-[Circumstantial evidence-Recovery]. The Law of Identification and Discovery by Sh. Abdul Haleem, p. 77; Mangal Singh v. Emperor Criminal Appeal No. 262 and Murder Reference No. 52 of 1936; Saleh Muhammad v. Emperor Criminal Appeal No. 562 and Murder Reference No. 108 of 1937; Mylaswami Goundan and another , v. Crown A I R 1937 Mad. 951; Katua v. State A I R 1958 S C 180 and Mehr Ali v. State 1968 S C M R 161 not applicable. Dates of hearing; 6th and 13th December 1974.                                                                                                                                                        JUDGMENT ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, J.--Muhammad Ashraf son of Yaqub Ali aged 26 years was tried along with his father Yaqub Ali aged…