PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ABDUL WALI vs State S — 2025 PLD 72 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2025 PLD 72 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
PLD
Parties
ABDUL WALI vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 367---P; S. 367; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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

Judgment text as reported

ABDUL WALI VS State S. 367---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 393 & 34---Rewriting of judgment---Scope---Accused were charged for murdering the brother of complainant while attempting to commit robbery---Perusal of the judgment impugned revealed that at the first instance, the Trial Court, observed that the accused persons with their common intention, had committed the murder of the deceased, while in the subsequent para, the Court deviated from its own views and mentioned that sole fire was made at deceased due to panic and fear, meaning thereby, that they had no prior intention to kill the deceased---Thus, the Trial Court had taken erroneous views in the judgment impugned and violated the provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C., therefore, the judgment impugned was not a proper judgment at all, as legally a judgment should invariably discuss the merits/demerits of the statements of the witnesses, with reference to the charge and a proper judgment must specify the points for determination and the reasoning of the Court for such determinations---Though normally minor omissions and commissions were curable and could be ignored by the Appellate Courts, but failure to specify the points of determination, absence of reasons for decision about the contentions raised in the matter or a total lack of reasoning, constituted a material defect in the judgment which could not be conveniently overlooked---In other words, a judgment which was not lucid, complete, self contained and unambiguous does not fulfill the requirements of S. 367, Cr.P.C---Accordingly, the conviction recorded on the basis of such judgment could not be sustained/upheld---Case was remanded to the Trial Court for the limited purpose to re-write the judgment on the basis of existing judicial record within two months strictly in accordance with law.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English