Citation Name: 2025 YLR 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PC Niaz Ahmed vs State Ss

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 YLR 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PC Niaz Ahmed VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, abettor present at the time of occurrence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Defective and vague framing of charge---Effect---Failure of justice---Trial Court while framing the charge did not mention the correct name of the deceased in the charge, facts in respect of motorcycles were missing from the charge; particulars in respect of causing injuries as mentioned in the FIR were also missing and a combined charge was framed for causing death and injuries to the deceased and many pieces evidence were not put to the accused while recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C---Charge must contain all material particulars as to time and place as well as the specific name of the alleged offence, the manner in which the offence is committed and the particulars of the accusation so as to allow the accused to explain the matter with which he is charged---On examination of the charge in the case in hand, it was clear that it was not framed correctly and was defective inasmuch it did not contain the correct name of the deceased---Besides, the role mentioned in the FIR against each accused was not mentioned in the charge---Accused persons as per FIR were alleged to have separately caused firearm injuries to the deceased and the victim but they were charged with combined accusation---Even the fact concerning motorcycles was missing from the charge---Such facts were misleading besides lacking in material particulars, which certainly vitiated the trial and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice---All the incriminating pieces of evidence available on record in the shape of examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of witnesses were required to be put to the accused if the same were against the accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C---Statements of accused persons recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C revealed that 10 empties of SMG and two empties of 7 mm rifle were recovered from the place of incident and the deceased was examined by the doctor, postmortem was conducted and thereafter a report was issued by the Medico-Legal Officer---Record showed that all the said evidence was not put to accused while recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C---In such circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial after framing a fresh charge containing full material particulars of the offence committed.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PC Niaz Ahmed vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR