JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-67 of 2018

Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-73 of 2018

___________________________________________________________

DATE                                      ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

____________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

25.11.2021

                        M/S. Safdar Ali Ghouri and Yasir Hussain Hulio,

Advocate(s) for appellants Ali Raza and Abdul Sattar.

                        Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is the case of prosecution that the appellants with co-accused Abdul Razzaq, in furtherance of their common intention, after keeping complainant Muhammad Idress and his witnesses under fear of death, by pointing pistol at them, committed murder of Mst.Seher, by causing her dagger injuries.

                        After due trial, co-accused Abdul Razzaq was acquitted, while the appellants for offence punishable under section 302(b) r/w Section 34 PPC were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of rupees Two Lacs  each to the legal heirs of deceased and in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, vide judgment dated 31.07.2018, which is impugned by the appellants by preferring two separate appeals.

                        At the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been prejudiced in their defence seriously, as the charge framed against them is defective one and such omission could not be lost sight of. By contending so, they sought for remand of the case for de-novo trial.

                        Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to above said proposition.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused record.

            The charge framed in the instant case reads as under;

"That on 18.03.2017, at 03-30 a.m(mid-night), at the house of you accused Abdul Sattar situated in Sheedi Muhalla, beat No.1 Airport Taluka and District Jacobabad, all of you accused persons in furtherance of your common intention came at place of occurrence, on account of maintenance you accused person Ali Raza caused dagger(chhuri) blows to your wife Mst.Seher and cut her neck, thereby you all 03 accused persons intentionally caused her death and committed an offence of Qatl-i-Amd punishable u/s.302 PPC r/w 34 PPC and within cognizance of this Court.

                   The bare perusal of above charge would reveal that role of causing dagger blows to the deceased is not ascribed to appellant Abdul Sattar. In FIR, it is specifically stated by the complainant that both the appellants committed murder of the deceased by causing her dagger blows. The charge so framed obviously lacks sufficient description and is contrary to the mandate contained by Section 221 Cr.PC and such omission has occasioned in failure of justice which is not appearing to be curable u/s.535 Cr.PC.

                   In case of S.A.K. Rehmani VS. The State (2005 SCMR-364),   it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that;

“It is to be noted that "the whole object of framing a charge is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if the charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offences with which the accused is convicted is not brought out in the charge, then the charge is defective. Makhan v. Emperor AIR 1945 All. 81. In other words it can be said that "the main object of framing of charge is to ensure that the accused had sufficient notice of the nature of accusation with which he was charged and secondly to make the Court concerned conscious regarding the real points in issue so that evidence could be confined to such points”.

                   In view of above, the impugned judgment to the extent of the appellants is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to conduct de-novo trial against them in accordance with law and it should be concluded preferably within three months, after receipt of copy of this judgment.

                    The instant criminal appeals are disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE