Muhammad Asad s/o Mehmood Palejo vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the Model Criminal Trial Court for the murder of Sultan Khaskheli under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to frame a charge regarding the alleged robbery—which occurred during the commission of the murder—and the failure to frame points for determination on all prosecution allegations, vitiated the trial. The High Court observed that while the appellant was questioned regarding the robbery during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court failed to frame a formal charge for robbery or include it as a point for determination in the judgment, contrary to the requirements of Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing the trial court to frame charges afresh and proceed in accordance with law.
- Does the failure to frame a charge for a specific allegation in a criminal trial constitute a failure of justice?
- Is a trial court required to frame points for determination on every allegation leveled against an accused by the prosecution?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and order a de novo trial due to procedural omissions in framing charges?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. The appellant was found to be guilty for committing murder of Sultan Khaskheli by causing him dagger blows; therefore, he for an offence punishable u/s 302(b) PPC was awarded death penalty as "Tazir" with fine of Rs.500,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the said deceased as compensation by learned Model Criminal Trial Court/ivth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide his judgment dated 12th July, 2019, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of filing the instant appeal. Simultaneously , a reference u/s 174 Cr.P.C is also made by learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence to the appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. On investigation it transpired that the appellant has allegedly committed death of the deceased during course of robbery of rupee one lac and mobile phone of the deceased. On arrest from the appellant has allegedly been secured robbed amount worth rupees twenty five thousand together with the wallet and mobile phone of the deceased. No charge for such robbery was framed against the appellant; such omission could not be lost sight of as same has occasioned in failure of justice not for the appellant but for the State too as is mandated by Section 535 Cr.P.C. On examination of the appellant u/s 342 Cr.P.C a question with regard to the alleged robbery and recovery of robbed articles was put to the appellant yet surprisingly no point for determination to that effect was framed by learned trial Court in impugned judgment which is contrary to the mandate contained by Article-367 Cr.P.C which prescribes framing of points for determination on each and every allegation so leveled against the accused by the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the parties when were confronted with the above said omissions, out of them learned A.P.G for the State was prompt to consent for remand of the case for denovo trial.
5. In view of above, the impugned judgm ent is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to frame the charge against the appellant afresh and then to proceed with the case again in accordance with law .
6. The instant appeal and criminal reference are disposed of in above terms.