IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2020

Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2020

  

                                                       

Appellants:                   Jaan Raheem @ Haroon @ Lal and Akhtar Wahid through Mr. Jamil Ahmed Shah advocate

                                     

The State:                      Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

 

 

Date of hearing:           10.10.2022

 

Date of judgment:        10.10.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellants and co-accused Aurangzeb, who died at trial, during course of robbery committed murder of Saeed Khan, by causing him fire shot injuries, for that they were booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, they were convicted under Section 397 PPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 07 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months; they were further convicted under section 302(b) PPC r/w 34 PPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.300,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months; all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/ MCTC Karachi South vide judgment dated 04.02.2020 which is impugned by the appellants before this Court by preferring two separate appeals. 

2.       At the very outset, it is pointed by learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl. P.G for the state that evidence of complainant Amir has been recorded in absence of counsel for the appellant Jaan Raheem, thereby he has been prejudiced in his defence seriously. By pointing out so, they suggested for remand of the case for its fresh disposal after recording evidence of complainant Amir as is prescribed by law. In support of their contentions, they relied upon case of Bashir Ahmed vs. The State     (SBLR 2021 Sindh 112), wherein, it has been held by Division Bench of this Court that;

“In the present case, trial court did not perform its functions diligently and recorded examination-in-chief of two witnesses named above in absence of the defence counsel by ignoring Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Section 340(1) Cr.P.C and Circular 6 of Chapter VI of Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars. As such, the appellant was prejudiced in the trial and defence…”

 

3.       The suggestion so advanced by learned counsel for the parties takes support from the record, therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to recall and re-examine complainant Amir as is prescribed by law and then to dispose of the very case afresh in accordance with law, preferably within 03 months after receipt of copy of this judgment.

4.       Since appellant Akhtar Wahid was enjoying the concession of bail at trial, he may enjoy the same concession subject to his furnishing fresh surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 

5.       Instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.

 

 JUDGE