Altaf Hussain vs The State and 3 others
This matter concerns a criminal revision challenge regarding the amendment of a charge sheet in a case involving allegations of theft and physical assault between neighbors. The complainant sought to add sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the existing charge under sections 457 and 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court initially dismissed the application, and the appellate court partially allowed it, adding only the hurt-related sections while excluding the sections pertaining to grievous hurt or violence during house-trespass. The High Court examined the record and noted that the precise sequence of events—specifically whether the assault and theft occurred simultaneously or separately—remained ambiguous and required evidentiary determination. The Court held that at the charge-framing stage, the court should not conclusively rule out potential offences if the evidence suggests they might be applicable. Consequently, the Court ordered the inclusion of all requested sections in the charge, directing the trial court to determine the veracity of these allegations based on evidence produced during the trial.
- Can a trial court include additional sections in a charge if the evidence at the initial stage does not conclusively rule out those offences?
- Is an FIR considered conclusive proof of the allegations contained therein for the purpose of framing a charge?
- Should a court determine the applicability of specific penal sections before or after the production of evidence at trial?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
OM AR SIAL, J. On 9-11-2018 a person by the name of Altaf Hussain lodged an FIR against Abdul Sattar, Safeer Ahmed and Abdul Ghaffar under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. at Police Station Boat Basin. Altaf recorded that on 8-11-2018 he had a scuffle with the 3 accused who were his neighbours. In that scuffle he got injured. When he went to the hospital to seek medical aid, the 3 accused went inside his apartment and stole some valuables.
2. The charge against the 3 accused was framed but soon thereafter an application seeking amendment of the charge was moved by Altaf Hussain in which he wanted that sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459 and 460 be added. The application was dismissed by the learned 8th Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South vide his order dated 23.1.2020.
3. Altaf appealed against the order of the learned magistrate and vide order dated 25-8-2020, the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South ordered that only sections 337-A(i) and A 337(ii), P.P.C. be added to the charge. He declined the prayer for the addition of sections 459 and 460, P.P.C.
4. Through Crl. Misc. Application No. 343 of 2020, Altaf Hussain has challenged the order of the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South to the extent of non-inclusion of sections 459 and 460, P.P.C. in the charge. On the other hand, through Crl. Misc. Application No. 348 of 2020, the 3 applicants have challenged the order of the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South to the extent of the inclusion of sections 337-A(i) and 337(ii), P.P.C. in the charge.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel as well as the learned A.P.G. The learned A.P.G. has very ably taken me through the allegations and the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer of the case. My observations and findings are as follows.
6. It appears that the allegation is that a fight between the parties, who are neighbors broke out in which Altaf Hussain was injured. The challan has been accepted and cognizance taken. It is not clear from the record whether the fight occurred outside or inside the apartment. It is also unclear whether the valuables were stolen when the fight broke out or whether the accused entered the apartment after the fight. These are all issues that have to be determined by the learned trial court after evidence is led at trial. The FIR is merely an information of the occurrence of a cognizable offence and does not mean that the allegations therein are deemed to be correct. At the moment and upon a cursory review of the evidence the occurrence of offences under sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459 and 460, P.P.C. cannot be conclusively ruled out.
7. In view of the above, let sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459 and 460, P.P.C. be added in the charge. The learned trial court will then decide, on the basis of the evidence produced before it at trial, whether the said offences or any of them was successfully made out.
8. Criminal Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of in the above terms.