JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Appeal.No.S-98 of 2019.

______________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER  WITH  SIGNATURE  OF  HON’BLE  JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

13.12.2021

                        Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant allegedly for committing murder of Mst.Rukhsana and Muhammad Khan under the garb of “Karap” was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life obviously on two counts with fine of Rs.200,000/- for each deceased payable to their legal heirs as compensation, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 28.10.2019, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Criminal Appeal.

                        No relative of the deceased came forward to lodge FIR of the incident; therefore, it was lodged by complainant ASI Taj Muhammad on behalf of the State; he admittedly is not an eye witness to the incident. The conviction and sentence has been awarded to the appellant mainly on the basis of Video Recording of his guilt before the complainant. No copy of such Video Recording has been provided to the appellant before commencement of trial, which was mandatory in terms of Section 265-C Cr.PC, and such omission obviously has vitiated the trial.

                        In case of Nadeem Ahmed Khan and others Vs. The State      (2007 PCr.LJ-233), it has been held by this High that;

“It is simpliciter revealed from section 265-C of C.P.C., that an accused must be supplied the copies of all documents prior to commencement of the trial, and framing the charge. The proposition would not change even if the accused 'has himself conceded to, the omission to apply with the provision of section 265-C vitiates the whole trial. In present case, on number of occasion the Investigating Officer was directed to produce the record so much so that the letter was also issued to Collector Sales Tax for supply of inventory of the record, without having recourse to the record the applicant would not be in a position to set up his defence. No doubt, under Article 4 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan rights of individual be dealt in 'accordance with law”.

                        Learned counsel for the parties when were confronted with above omission, were fair enough to say that the said omission could only be cured on remand of the case.

                        In view of above, the impugned judgment is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to supply the copy of Video Recording of his alleged guilt to the appellant and then to proceed with the case against him afresh/denovo.

                        The instant Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                       JUDGE