2022 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 353 & 231
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A
Evidence to be taken in presence of accused
Recalling of witnesses when charge altered
Scope
Accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of victim by strangulating his throat, for that they were booked and reported upon by police
Accused persons were convicted after trial, which conviction was appealed against
Counsel for the parties, pointed out that on joining of trial by one of the accused persons, the charge already framed was amended and the evidence already recorded in his absence was adopted, which was contrary to the mandate contained in S. 353, Cr.P.C. which called for examination of witnesses in presence of accused and that all the three accused persons were convicted and sentenced accordingly by the trial court which was against the mandate contained in S. 231, Cr.P.C. which called for examination witnesses afresh when charge was altered, amended or added
Impugned judgment was set aside by the High Court with direction to the Trial Court to recall and re-examine the complainant and his witnesses by providing fair chance to the accused persons to contest the case as per mandate contained in Art. 10-A of the Constitution
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.
It is alleged that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Muhammad Nadeem by strangulating his throat, for that they were booked and reported upon by police.
2. On conclusion of trial, the appellants for an offence punishable under sections 302(b), 34, P.P.C. were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.200,000/-each to the legal heirs of the said deceased as compensation and in default of payment whereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide his Judgment dated 04.05.2018, which is impugned by appellants before this Court by preferring instant Criminal Jail Appeal. At the very outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant that on joining of trial by appellant Imran, the charge already framed was amended, the evidence already recorded in his absence was adopted, which is contrary to the mandate contained by section 353, Cr.P.C which call for examination of witnesses in presence of accused and then all the three appellants were convicted and sentenced accordingly by learned trial Court which is against the mandate contained by sections 231, Cr.P.C which call for examination of the witnesses afresh when charge is altered, amended or added. By pointing out so, they sought for remand of the case to learned Trial Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with Law. In view of above, the impugned judgment is set-aside with direction to learned Trial Court to recall and re-examine the complainant and his witnesses by providing fair chance to the appellants to contest the case against them as per mandate contained by Article-10(A) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Needless to state that appellant Muhammad Shahbaz was enjoying the concession of bail at trial, he to enjoy same concession subject to furnishing fresh surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/-to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The instant appeal is disposed off in above terms. SA/M-121/Sindh Case remanded.