Mehrullah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 761 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Mehrullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-a, 337-D, 337-F, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-ammah, jaifah, murderous assault, rash and negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of the witnesses---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons made a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which uncle of complainant died while his father sustained injuries---Eye-witness of crime stated that the accused persons attacked upon the complainant party---However, said witness had admitted that he and the victims belonged to same tribe and even the complainant was his nephew---If the accused persons were beating the nephew and brothers of eye-witness, then question was why they left said witness unhurt, who otherwise was present at the site and was witnessing the crime---It was an astonishing factor that the complainant along with the deceased, injured and eye-witness were on the target of accused party, but only uncle and father of complainant were hit and the complainant as well as his another uncle/eye-witness were let free---Said fact did not appeal to logic that by killing a person in presence of his blood relations, the accused would not attempt to cause any injury/kill the prosecution witnesses leaving them for evidence---Eye-witness being brother of deceased and uncle of complainant played a role of an audience, which otherwise could not be believed in prevailing tribe set-up---apparently, the conduct of all the witnesses and more particularly the conduct of complainant and eye-witness appeared to be unnatural---On that point too, the presence of both the witnesses was doubtful---another witness of the occurrence appeared but had not supported the case of prosecution and stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in his house when he received information about the occurrence---On the request of Prosecutor that witness was declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the State counsel---admittedly, the star witness of the prosecution resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the case of prosecution, thus his statement had dented and damaged the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mehrullah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 761 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR