MUJAHID KHAN vs State — 2026 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUJAHID KHAN VS State. Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Accused/petitioner was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 25.11.2010 at about 05:00 p.m. at the doorstep of the house of the petitioner-convict---Complainant and eye-witness had furnished ocular account of the incident---In their statements, said witnesses deposed that on the fateful day they had visited the house of the petitioner-convict to pay the price of the pedi crop to his father---Dispute arose on account of deduction of a certain amount from the total price of the pedi crop, which led to annoyance on the part of the father of the petitioner-convict and initially resulted in an altercation between the parties---During the course scuffle, the petitioner-convict allegedly fired at the deceased, who was present along with his father/the complainant---During cross-examination, the defence did not challenge the place of occurrence---Eye-witnesses had consistently and specifically attributed the role of firing to the petitioner-convict, however, they were consistent on the point that only single fire shot was fired by the petitioner-convict at the deceased which proved fatal---Medical evidence, furnished by Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased supported the ocular account---Medical Officer observed a single firearm entrance wound, measuring 1×1 cm, on the lower border of the left lower jaw of the deceased, and opined that the said injury resulted into the unnatural death of the deceased---Petitioner in his statement had not denied the occurrence, however, he had come forward with a slightly different version---According to him, during grappling the deceased got hit with his own pistol---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to extenuating circumstances, the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 302(c), P.P.C, and not Section 302(b), P.P.C---Thus, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict under Section 302(b), P.P.C, were set-aside, however, he was convicted under Section 302(c), P.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15-years---With said modification in sentence, appeal was partly allowed.

MUJAHID KHAN vs State — 2026 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR