Saalim Kalo vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1010 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.

Saalim Kalo VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-a(ii), 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---accused were charged that they assaulted the complainant party, due to which father of the complainant died whereas complainant and his brother became injured---Previous dispute was the motive behind the occurrence---Record showed that three eye-witnesses furnished ocular account of the incident---None of them had stated that accused had in any manner facilitated the main absconding accused in committing murder of deceased---None of the witnesses had hinted in evidence that accused and other two accused had come with a common intention to commit murder of the deceased---all of them had stated that they were present on their lands and cutting grass, when accused and other accused arrived there and asked them as to why they were cutting grass, given the dispute between them over agricultural land, and then they started inflicting blows to them---From such evidence, it was apparent that every accused acted independently, and did not facilitate each other in inflicting blows to their victims, nor instigated others to commit the crime and murder the deceased ultimately---No reason existed for the accused party to target the deceased particularly and murder him which was suggestive of the fact that it was a free fight between the parties---Record showed that the incident took place on the lands of accused party and not on the lands of complainant party, in which accused himself was injured, as was evident from the evidence of Medico-Legal Officer---There was no suggestion of preplanning by the accused party, and incident took place when the complainant party decided to accost the accused party when they were present on their lands---In such circumstances, when the confidence inspiring evidence to establish sharing of common intention by the accused was lacking, the accused could not be held vicariously liable for murder of the deceased---accused, in the circumstances, would be held responsible only for injuries inflicted by him on victim---as per medical evidence, victim had received five injuries---Maximum punishment for injuries falling under S.337-a(ii), P.P.C., was 05 years---Jail roll of the accused reflected that he had remained in jail substantially for 05 years, 08 months and 11 days; had earned remissions of 07 years, 07 months and 19 days; his unexpired portion of sentence was 12 years and 11 months including sentence for failure to pay compensation---accused, therefore, had already undergone 13 years and 04 months, although the maximum punishment under S.324, P.P.C., was up to 10 years---appeal was dismissed, however, the conviction and sentence awarded to accused under Ss.302, 34, P.P.C. were set aside, and the conviction and sentence under Ss.324, 337-a(i) and 337-a(ii), P.P.C. were maintained and converted into the period already undergone by him.

Saalim Kalo vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD