IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

Criminal Appeal No.S-70 of 2020.

Appellants: 1. Khamiso son of Ahmed.

2. Ghulam Ghous son of Bakhshal.

3. Riaz son of Wasayo.

4. Ashiq son of Hoat.

5. Ghulam Murtaza son of Bagoo.

6. Ghulam Hussain @ Bagoo son of Baloch.

7. Ghulam Hyder son of Bagoo.

8. Bakhshal son of Baloch.

9. Rasheed son of Ahmed.

10.Imam Ali son of Bagoo.

11. Farooq son of Khamiso.

12. Alam son of Wasayo.

13. Khairoo son of Khanoo.

14. Ghulam Nabi son of Wasayo.

15. Hoat son of Khuda Bux.

All bycaste Malik, R/O village Baloch Malik, Taluka Ubauro, District Ghotki.

(Confined at Central Prison Sukkur).

Through M/s Muhammad Iqbal Memon, Qurban Ali Malano and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, advocates.

Complainant. Through Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, advocate.

The State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the State.

Date of hearing : 31-05-2021.

Date of decision : 31-05-2021.

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J; It is alleged that the appellants with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their object caused fire shot and lathies injuries to complainant Muneer Ahmed and his witnesses who are twelve in number with intention to commit their murder in order to satisfy land dispute with them, for that they were booked and reported upon accordingly.

2. After trial, the appellants alone were found guilty for the said offence, consequently they were convicted and sentenced to undergo various terms by learned Additional Sessions Judge/(MCTC) Ubauro by way of judgment dated 02-11-2020, which is impugned by the appellants before this Court by preferring the instant Crl. Appeal.

3. At the very outset, it is pointed out jointly by learned counsel for the parties that charge framed against the appellants was jumble, it was contrary to mandate contained by section 221 Cr.P.C; which prescribes that it should have been specific for each and every allegation; it was amended subsequently, but witnesses already examined were not recalled for purpose of their re-examination, which is contrary to the mandate contained by section 231 Cr.P.C and evidence of certain witnesses being injured has not been recorded by learned trial Court, without assigning any cogent reason for doing so, which was essential for just decision of the case, which is contrary to mandate contained by Article 10-A of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prescribes right of fair trial to every person. By pointing out so, they sought for remand of the case to learned trial Court for denovo/fresh trial against the appellants.

4. In view of above, the impugned judgment only to the extent of appellants is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to initiate denovo/fresh trial against them and then to dispose of the case in accordance with law, preferably within three months after receipt of copy of this judgment.

5. Admittedly the appellants were enjoying the concession of bail at trial; they may enjoy the same concession subject to furnishing fresh surety in sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

6. The instant Crl. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Nasim/PA,