2005 PLP 1707 (MLD)
DHANIDINO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1707 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DHANIDINO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1707 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1707 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1707 (MLD) (DHANIDINO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.231---Appreciation of evidence---Remand of case---Counsel for accused had contended that without going into the merits of case, matter should be remanded to Trial Court on account of certain irregularities committed in trial of case---Counsel for accused had pointed out that two persons were allegedly murdered by accused, but Trial Court while framing charge, referred to only murder of one---Trial Court framed amended charge, but no opportunity of recalling witnesses was provided to accused as required under S. 231, Cr.P.C., which had caused prejudice to accused because under the charge framed earlier accused was required to defend himself for murder of one person only, while under amended charge he was required to defend himself for commission of murder of two persons---Another irregularity was committed at the conclusion of proceedings when statement of accused was recorded---Columns about, the name, father's name, religion, caste, age, occupation and residence were blank in the statement of accused---At the end of the statement there was a thumb-impression, but it was not written as to whose thumb-impression was taken---Additional Advocate-General and Assistant Advocate-General had not denied said facts and impugned judgment was set aside with their consent---Case was remanded to Trial Court with directions to give opportunity to accused in terms of S.231, Cr.P.C. and if accused would make a request for recalling three witnesses named in earlier part of judgment, those witnesses would be recalled and further opportunity of cross-examination would be given to Advocate of accused---Statement of accused would be recorded thereafter afresh and after hearing Advocates of parties, fresh judgment would be given.
- Masood A. Noorani Addl. A.-G. and Rasheed A. Qureshi, Asst. A.-G. for Respondent.
- 5. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the accused/appellant to recall the three witnesses who were examined before the amendment in the charge and further cross-examine the witnesses, if so desire. Secondly, the statement of accused be recorded afresh and thereafter the Advocates for the parties be heard and fresh decision be given.
- 7. The learned Additional A.-G. Mr. Masood A. Noorani and learned Assistant A.G. Mr. Rasheed A. Qureshi have not denied the above facts and with their consent the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the appellant in terms of section 231, Cr.P.C. and if the appellant makes a request for recalling the three witnesses named in the earlier part of this judgment, those witnesses be called and further opportunity of cross-examination be given to the learned Advocate for the accused/appellant. Thereafter the statement of accused/appellant be recorded afresh and after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties fresh judgment be given. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1995, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment. The appellant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The appeal is allowed as above. The listed-application has been rendered infructuous, which stands disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.231
Counsel for accused had contended that without going into the merits of case, matter should be remanded to Trial Court on account of certain irregularities committed in trial of case
Counsel for accused had pointed out that two persons were allegedly murdered by accused, but Trial Court while framing charge, referred to only murder of one
Trial Court framed amended charge, but no opportunity of recalling witnesses was provided to accused as required under S. 231, Cr.P.C., which had caused prejudice to accused because under the charge framed earlier accused was required to defend himself for murder of one person only, while under amended charge he was required to defend himself for commission of murder of two persons
Another irregularity was committed at the conclusion of proceedings when statement of accused was recorded
Columns about, the name, father's name, religion, caste, age, occupation and residence were blank in the statement of accused
At the end of the statement there was a thumb-impression, but it was not written as to whose thumb-impression was taken
Additional Advocate-General and Assistant Advocate-General had not denied said facts and impugned judgment was set aside with their consent
Case was remanded to Trial Court with directions to give opportunity to accused in terms of S.231, Cr.P.C. and if accused would make a request for recalling three witnesses named in earlier part of judgment, those witnesses would be recalled and further opportunity of cross-examination would be given to Advocate of accused
Statement of accused would be recorded thereafter afresh and after hearing Advocates of parties, fresh judgment would be given.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-2003 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under section 302 P.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000, in case of default of fine he has to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The appellant has been further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 100,000 each to the heirs of deceased Mst. Begi and Jan Muhammad Noorani.
2. Mr. S. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without going into the merits of the case the matter should be remanded to the learned trial Court on account of irregularities committed at two stages.
3. Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah has pointed out that in this case two persons namely Mst. Begi and Jan Muhammad are alleged to have been murdered by the accused/appellant. However, the learned trial Court while framing charge on 9-1-1997 referred to the murder of Mst. Begi wife of appellant only. After the framing of charge P.W. Bhaley Dino, P.W.2 Dr. Noor Muhammad and P.W.3 Ali Bux were examined. Subsequently, on 15-11-2000 DDA submitted application under section 227, Cr.P.C. pointing out that two murders were committed but in the charge name of deceased Jan Muhammad does not appear due to error and a request was made for alteration of charge. The learned trial Court allowed the application and framed the amended charge on 31-1-2001. After framing of amended charge the learned D.D.A. submitted a statement that there was no need of re-examining the witnesses already examined. However, no opportunity of recalling the witnesses was provided to the appellant as required under section 231, Cr.P.C. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has submitted that this has caused prejudice to the appellant/accused as under the charge framed on 19-1-1997 he was required to defend himself for the murder of one person only, while under the amended charge he was required to defend himself for the commission of murder of two persons and in fact has been convicted for the commission of murder of two persons.
4. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has next pointed out that another irregularity was committed at the conclusion of proceedings when the statement of accused was recorded. In the statement of accused the c name, father's name, religion, caste, age, occupation and residence columns are blank. At the end of statement there is a thumb-impression but it is not written as to whose thumb-impression was taken.
5. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the accused/appellant to recall the three witnesses who were examined before the amendment in the charge and further cross-examine the witnesses, if so desire. Secondly, the statement of accused be recorded afresh and thereafter the Advocates for the parties be heard and fresh decision be given.
6. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has submitted that during the pendency of case before the trial Court the appellant was on bail and after conviction he was remanded in custody. Since with the remand of the case, the case shall again be pending before the trial Court, therefore, the position qua the appellant as prevailing before the judgment may also be restored and the appellant be directed to be released on bail.
7. The learned Additional A.-G. Mr. Masood A. Noorani and learned Assistant A.G. Mr. Rasheed A. Qureshi have not denied the above facts and with their consent the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the appellant in terms of section 231, Cr.P.C. and if the appellant makes a request for recalling the three witnesses named in the earlier part of this judgment, those witnesses be called and further opportunity of cross-examination be given to the learned Advocate for the accused/appellant. Thereafter the statement of accused/appellant be recorded afresh and after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties fresh judgment be given. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1995, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment. The appellant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The appeal is allowed as above. The listed-application has been rendered infructuous, which stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./D-24/K Order accordingly.