KHALID MENGAL vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 120 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KHALID MENGAL VS State Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, modification of---Accused were charged for committing murder of cousin of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two witnesses comprising of complainant and his nephew---Complainant, in his deposition as well as in the FIR recorded by him immediately after the incidence, had narrated the facts leading to the murder of deceased---Complainant was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, the defence was unable to shake the testimony of the complainant or to point out any material contradiction therein---Evidence of the complainant was consistent, coherent and without any contradiction of material nature---In the deposition of complainant, the chain of acts was unbroken and continuous right from the moment, when incident took place, taking up of the injured to the hospital, death of the deceased and the lodging of the FIR---Neither there was any delay in filing of the FIR nor was there any allegation or chance of deliberation/consultation before filing of the FIR---Prosecution witness/nephew of the complainant narrated a similar story and faced lengthy cross-examination---Both said witnesses were unanimous that appellant/co-accused was not armed and was empty handed---No material contradiction could be found in the statement of the said witness as well, which was consistent, confidence inspiring and unshaken---Record transpired that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. and the FIR was promptly lodged by the complainant at about 9.00 p.m. in which the accused persons were named and proper role were assigned to them---Since the complainant was related to the deceased and was a natural witness as he was also living in the same area, therefore, he could not be termed as a chance witness---Record showed that co-accused/appellant was empty handed right from the beginning and had no intention of attacking the deceased---If co-accused/ appellant was also inclined to take active part in the murder of the deceased, at least, he should have been armed with some weapon like a hatchet, a dagger or some fire arm, etc.---Co-accused was found not armed at all and he did not take any part in the murder of the deceased, which constituted mitigating circumstances in his case---Circumstances established that accused/ appellant and the unidentified persons were armed with pistols which meant that they were fully prepared and had clear intention of killing the deceased---Co-accused/appellant in view of his old age and the mitigating circumstances deserved acquittal---Appeal against conviction was dismissed to the extent of accused, however, same was allowed to the extent of co-accused and he was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

KHALID MENGAL vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 120 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported