| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 2273 2025 SLD 2273 = 2025 YLR 801 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-119 of 2018, decided on 24th September, 2024.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi for Appellants. Salahuddin Panhwar for the Complainant. Ms. Rameshan Oad, APG, for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. S-119 of 2018, decided on 24th September, 2024.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi for Appellants. Salahuddin Panhwar for the Complainant. Ms. Rameshan Oad, APG, for the State.
PC NIAZ AHMED and 3 others---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),324,337F(iii),114,34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatli-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, abettor present at the time of occurrence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Defective and vague framing of charge---Effect---Failure of justice---Trial Court while framing the charge did not mention the correct name of the deceased in the charge, facts in respect of motorcycles were missing from the charge; particulars in respect of causing injuries as mentioned in the FIR were also missing and a combined charge was framed for causing death and injuries to the deceased and many pieces evidence were not put to the accused while recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C---Charge must contain all material particulars as to time and place as well as the specific name of the alleged offence, the manner in which the offence is committed and the particulars of the accusation so as to allow the accused to explain the matter with which he is charged---On examination of the charge in the case in hand, it was clear that it was not framed correctly and was defective inasmuch it did not contain the correct name of the deceased--Besides, the role mentioned in the FIR against each accused was not mentioned in the charge---Accused persons as per FIR were alleged to have separately caused firearm injuries to the deceased and the victim but they were charged with combined accusation---Even the fact concerning motorcycles was missing from the charge---Such facts were misleading besides lacking in material particulars, which certainly vitiated the trial and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice---All the incriminating pieces of evidence available on record in the shape of examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of witnesses were required to be put to the accused if the same were against the accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C---Statements of accused persons recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C revealed that 10 empties of SMG and two empties of 7 mm rifle were recovered from the place of incident and the deceased was examined by the doctor, postmortem was conducted and thereafter a report…