Citation Name: 2025 PLD 360 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI HASSAN BROHI vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 360 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI HASSAN BROHI VS State S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Procedural lapses---Fair trial---Scope---Right to a competent and adequately prepared counsel---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by strangulating her---Record showed that the matter was transferred to the Trial Court on 23-01-2020---On the same day, the Trial Court recorded the depositions of the complainant and an eye-witness, however, their cross-examinations were deferred due to the absence of the appellant's original defence counsel, who had cited health concerns---Case was then adjourned to 01-02-2020, but on that date, defence counsel remained absent---Instead, an advocate assigned to represent the pauper accused appeared before the Court---Record did not confirm whether said advocate was appointed or provided with the case documents or granted sufficient time to prepare for the defense---Despite that, the Trial Court proceeded to conduct cross-examinations of complainant and an eye-witness, and record the depositions of the remaining five prosecution witnesses---All the said witnesses were cross-examined by the said advocate on the same day---Notably, the case diary indicated that original defence counsel later submitted a statement withdrawing his Vakalatnama---Sudden assumption of defense responsibilities by an advocate without documented access to the case files or adequate preparation time, rendered the cross-examinations ineffective and merely perfunctory---Said failure directly compromised the appellant's right to effective legal representation, particularly in a capital punishment case---Withdrawal of Vakalatnama of original defence counsel and the subsequent appointment of an advocate were executed without judicial scrutiny or the appellant's explicit consent, thereby violating the right to counsel of choice under Article 10-A of the Constitution---Right to a fair trial entailed not only access to legal representation but also the right to competent and adequately prepared counsel---Procedural lapses in the case reduced the trial to a mere formality, depriving the appellant of a meaningful defence---Absence of proper preparation in cross-examinations resulted in miscarriage of justice---It was a fundamental right of every accused to be represented by legal counsel of their own choice---In cases involving capital punishment, the law mandated that the accused must be provided with legal representation and in situations where the accused could not afford a lawyer, the State bore the responsibility of covering the legal expenses---Accordingly, the Sessions Court or Special Court was duty-bound to appoint a legal practitioner at the State's expense to defend the accused---Procedure adopted by the Trial Court was irregular and unlawful and such defects could not be cured under S. 537, Cr.P.C.---No evidence was on record to indicate that the cross- examinations of the prosecution witnesses were conducted by a duly authorized counsel representing the appellant---Instead, the record merely reflected that an advocate, whose formal appointment was not documented anywhere in the case files, undertook the cross-examinations---Such fact raised a strong presumption that the cross-examinations were either not conducted properly or not conducted at all, especially given the fact that on 01-02-2020, the court recorded the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and also conducted the cross-examinations of seven prosecution witnesses on the same day---Furthermore, there was no mention in the record of whether the subsequent appearance of appointed advocate was properly appointment or was provided with the necessary case documents or given adequate time to prepare---Such concern was particularly critical since his appointment coincided with the same day on which the prosecution evidence was recorded---Defense counsel played a pivotal role in safeguarding an accused's rights, including raising objections to improper questions, challenging the admissibility of evidence and ensuring that the accused received a fair trial---When an accused is deprived of competent legal representation or when a defence counsel is appointed without proper preparation, it severely undermines the fairness of the trial---Said issue becomes even more critical in cases where capital punishment is at stake, as the right to effective legal representation is a fundamental constitutional and legal safeguard---In the light of said deficiencies, the appellant's conviction and sentence could not be sustained, which was set aside and case was remanded for de novo trial and decision afresh---Appeal was partly allowed.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 360 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI HASSAN BROHI vs State S — 2025 PLD 360 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD