KHURSHEED AHMED vs ZAHID HUSSAIN and 2 others
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the trial court acquitting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of charges under sections 504 and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment, which omitted findings on certain charged sections and contained contradictions in evaluating evidence, was sustainable in law. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment was defective as it remained silent regarding specific charges framed against the respondents under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court with directions to pass a fresh judgment after reassessing the evidence adduced by the parties and providing them an opportunity of hearing. The key principle laid down is that a trial court judgment must adjudicate upon all charges framed against the accused, and failure to render findings on specific counts warrants a remand for fresh appraisal of the evidence.
- Whether an acquittal judgment is sustainable when it remains silent in respect of some of the charges framed against the accused?
- Can an appellate court remand a criminal case back to the trial court for passing a fresh judgment upon reassessing the material produced in evidence?
- What is the legal effect of a trial court failing to mention whether the accused have been acquitted or convicted under specific sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for which charges were framed?
- Section 506/2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.--- The learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case has submitted that the direct complaint was filed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 506/2. 337-F(i), and 504, P.P.C. So also the charge was framed under these sections but the learned trial Court passed the Judgment acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 only for offence punishable under sections 504 and 506/2, P.P.C. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraph No,3 of the reasons in the impugned Judgment which is reproduced as under: ' In their examination-in-chief, both the alleged eye-witnesses Abdul Hadi and Ali Muhammad have more or less stated the same facts as narrated by complainant but the eye-witness Abdul Hadi has contradicted the complaint by stating that S.H.O. Did not ask them for bribe on the same day of incident but on next following day, as he had asked the complainant to come on the next morning.
2. ' This criminal acquittal appeal is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents No,1 and 2 as well as learned APG for the State on merits but the learned APG has conceded that without touching the merits of the case, if the case be remanded back to the learned trial Court for passing fresh Judgment by reassessing the material produced by the complainant in his evidence then he has no objection.
3. ' Admittedly, the charge was framed against the respondents under four sections while the judgment is silent in respect of sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(ii), P.P.C. It is not mentioned in the judgment whether the respondents have been acquitted or convicted in these two sections.
4. Consequently, the judgment dated 5-3-2009 passed by the learned IIIrd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur in Cr. Case No,112 of 2008 whereby acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the case, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with directions to pass the judgment by reassessing the evidence adduced by the parties after providing them an opportunity of hearing.##TE# ' With these observations, the criminal acquittal appeal stands disposed of.