IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2019

Appellants: Muhammad Amir and Tanveer Ahmed through M/s Maroof Hussain Hashmi and M.S. Anjum advocates

The State: Through Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 21.10.2022

Date of judgment: 21.10.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants with rest of the culprits after having formed unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object not only committed murder of Mehtab, Areeb and Aizaz Taj, but caused fire shot injuries to P.Ws Sajjad, Muneeb and Adeel with intention to commit their murder too, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, co-accused Kashif, Pervaiz, Sagheer, Asif, Khurram, Chan Zeb and Muhammad Saleem were acquitted, while appellants Amir and Tanveer were convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as tazir; they were further convicted under Section 324 PPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month; all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Karachi Central vide judgment dated 15.06.2019 which is impugned by the appellants before this Court by preferring instant appeals.

2. At the very outset, it is pointed out by learned DPG for the state that no order with regard to the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is passed; no punishment is awarded to the appellants for causing injuries to the injured witnesses; there is nothing in the impugned judgment which may suggest that the appellants have been convicted for single or triple murder which is contrary to mandate contained by section 367 Cr.P.C which prescribes that every judgment should specify the offence and penal section for which accused convicted and sentenced. Even, the amended charge was jumble in its nature; it is not specifying each and every penal section independently, which is contrary to the mandate contained by Section 221 Cr.P.C and more so, evidence already recorded was adopted which is contrary to the mandate contained by Section 227 Cr.P.C which prescribes recalling and re-examination of the witnesses on the amendment / alteration / addition so made in the charge. By pointing out so, he suggested for setting aside of the impugned judgment only to the extent of the appellants with direction to learned trial Court to conduct the denovo trial of the case against the appellants, which is not opposed by learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The pointation so made, takes support from the record, consequently, the impugned judgment only to the extent of appellants is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to charge them afresh and then to proceed with their case further in accordance with law.

4. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE