Samand Khan S/O Zar Badshah vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court on the grounds of serious defects in the framing of the charge and subsequent trial irregularities. The core legal question revolved around whether the use of improper terminology in the charge and failure to record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the handwriting of the presiding officer caused a failure of justice under Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned judgment suffered from grave infirmities and irregularities, leading to a failure of justice. Consequently, the court set aside the judgment, remanded the matter to the trial court for a de novo trial starting from the stage of framing the charge, and granted post-arrest bail to the 74-year-old appellant due to his advanced age, subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that material errors in framing charges contrary to statutory requirements and procedural non-compliance vitiate the trial, necessitating a retrial.
- Does the use of incorrect terminology in a charge sheet cause a failure of justice under Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal consequence when a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not recorded in the handwriting of the presiding officer as required by Sindh High Court Rules?
- Can an appellate court set aside a judgment and remand the matter for retrial due to gross errors in framing the charge?
- Section 224, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 225, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. At the outset, when the learned counsel for the appellant started arguing the matter through reading of Charge available at page 43, he highlighted gross errors in the Charge as first of all, per learned counsel, Section 224 Cr.P.C requires words in the Charge to be taken in the sense of law under which offence is punishable. Admittedly, per learned counsel, the offence is of murder Qatl- e-Amd, however, in the Charge word "exterminated" has been used which does not satisfy the requirements of Section 224 Cr.P.C as well as per learned counsel while the Charge states that Arsalan was complainant's son whereas, such version is contrary to the fact as Arsalan was son of Munawar Khan which fact though has been mentioned in the Charge but in a very confusing manner and per learned counsel, per section 225 Cr.P.C it is a case of serious failure of justice.
2. Learned Addl. P.G. admitted the assertions of the learned counsel and points out certain other infirmities and irregularities for example statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was required to be recorded under the handwriting of the learned Presiding Officer which requirement prescribed by Sindh High Court Rules has not been complied with.
3. For the above reasons impugned judgment is set aside, matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for retrial from the state of framing of charge in accordance with law, however, looking at the advance age of the appellant who is 74 years of age, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of learned trial Court.