Muharam Gadehi & Others vs The State
The appellants challenged their conviction, contending that the trial court pronounced the impugned judgment prematurely, thereby depriving them of their right to examine two remaining defense witnesses, Sojhro Khoso and Ghulam Nabi Khoso, whom they had specifically named during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellants argued that this omission prejudiced their defense and violated the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The State and the complainant consented to setting aside the judgment to allow for the completion of the defense evidence, provided the prosecution was also granted an opportunity to examine certain prosecution witnesses. The High Court, noting the consent of all parties, set aside the impugned judgment. The court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to record the testimony of the remaining defense witnesses and any additional prosecution evidence, followed by the issuance of a fresh judgment in accordance with the law.
- Does the premature pronouncement of a judgment without examining all defense witnesses named under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
- Can an appellate court set aside a judgment and remand a case for the recording of additional defense evidence based on the consent of the parties?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 10-A, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. At the very outset, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants during course of their examination u/s. 342 Cr.PC, named Nazir Dahiri, Ghulam Shabir Gadehi, Sojhro Khoso and Ghulam Nabi Khoso, to be examined by them in their defence. They examined Nazir Dahiri and Ghulam Shabir Gadehi and were about to examine Sojhro Khoso and Ghulam Nabi Khoso in their defence, the learned trial Judge pronounced the impugned judgment, which has prejudiced the appellants in their defence. By stating so, they sought for setting aside of the impugned judgment with direction to learned trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses of the appellants to meet with ends of justice, as is prescribed by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Learned Addl.P .G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant were fair enough to say that they would be having no objection, if the impugned judgment is set aside and case is remanded to learned trial Courrt for recording evidence of remaining DWs Sojhro Khoso and Ghulam Nabi Khoso, if they too are provided chance to examine PWs Mumtaz Ali, SIO/Inspector Syed Gambal Shah and Tapedar .
3. In view of above, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to examine DWs Sojhro Khoso and Ghulam Nabi Khoso and any other witness which the prosecution may intend to examine in support of its case and then to pass afresh judgment in accordance with law .
4. Needless to state that appellants, if were found enjoying the concession of bail at trial, may enjoy the same, subject to furnishing fresh surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly a/w listed applications.