AHMED KHAN and 2 others vs CHATRO and 2 others
This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, convicting the appellants under Section 220 and Section 337-E(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether framing a charge and recording a conviction under a purely definitional statutory provision, specifically Section 337-E(i), constitutes a incurable defect that vitiates the trial. The High Court held that Section 337-E(i) contains only definitions of offences, whereas the penal consequences are prescribed under Section 337-F of the Code. Consequently, framing a charge and convicting the accused under a penal statute's definition section rather than its penalizing section renders the charge fundamentally defective and invalidates the trial. The High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court to proceed afresh after framing a proper charge in accordance with law.
- Does framing a charge under a definition provision instead of the penal provision vitiate a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction be legally sustained under Section 337-E(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a trial court must be directed to retry a case when the underlying charge is found to be defective?
- Section 220, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-E(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-4-1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 220, P.P.C. To undergo R.I.
For three months each. Accused Ilyas and Madad alias Mubarak were also convicted under section 337-E(i), P.P.C. To undergo R.I. For three months each. Accused Ahmed Khan was directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation to victims "hatro and Mevo.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.A.-G., and one of the victims/ respondents Mevo have been heard. The other respondent, namely, Chatro has since expired.
3. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the charge in the case was framed under section 337-E(i), P.P.C., which carries definitions of the offences, thus the charge was defective and invalid. It was next argued that the conviction was also recorded under section 337-E(i), P.P.C., which was not sustainable. It was, therefore, urged that the case be remanded to the trial Court for retrial after framing the charge in a proper manner.
3-A. Learned A.A.-G. Supported the judgment of conviction contending that the charge was valid and proper, despite that he had no reasons to supplement his plea.
4. Respondent Memo, who is present in person, states that he has patched up with the appellants and does not intend to contest the appeal.
The perusal of section 337-E(i), P.P.C. Clearly shows that it contains the definitions of the offences while the punishment in respect of the said offences has been provided under section 337-F, P.P.C.
The charge is thus defective, which has vitiated the trial. The conviction recorded under section 337-E(i) is also unsustainable. The submissions made by learned A.A.-G. Are absolutely misdirected being hollow and shallow. In the circumstances the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside, the case is remanded to the trial Court for proceeding afresh after framing a proper charge in accordance with law.
' The appeal stands disposed of.