Akhtar Nawaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 92 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Akhtar Nawaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 337-a(i), 337-F(ii), 337-D & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, jaifah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Contents of judgment---Prosecution case was that the accused was involved in the present case with an allegation that he made firing upon two persons of complainant party---after submission of challan, a full-fledged trial was conducted; the appellant and late co-accused were initially convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S.302(b), ten years under S.324 and three years under S.337 P.P.C---Being aggrieved of said judgment and order, appellant and another convict had filed appeal, which was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence and matter was remanded foe de novo Trial after reframing charges---During Trial, one of the accused died so case abated to his extent---appellant was convicted and sentenced whereas two respondents were acquitted---Charges were framed against the accused persons under different heads, however, while recording judgment, Trial Court had not mentioned whether it had acquitted the appellant under S.302/34 P.P.C---Said appellant in previous trial was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S.302/34 P.P.C---Such lacuna in the impugned judgment rendered the same illegal in terms of mandate of S.367, Cr.P.C---as per S.367, Cr.P.C, it was the statutory duty of the Trial Court to record reasons as well as points of determination on the basis of which it was convicting or acquitting an accused person and it was also its duty to specify the offence and the section of law under which an accused was convicted---Record showed that while recording the conviction of appellant and acquitting the accused/respondents, the Trial Court did not record any reason(s) qua the applicability of S.34, P.P.C in respect of the nominated accused---Trial Court had though convicted the appellant under S.324, P.P.C for ten years, under Ss.337-a(i) and 337-F(ii) P.P.C. for three years each and under S.337-D, P.P.C to pay arsh amount, however, no finding qua the applicability of S.34, P.P.C had been recorded---Therefore, on such ground too, the impugned judgment was not sustainable in the eye of law---Since the impugned order and judgment of the Trial Court fell short of the legal requirements, therefore, the same was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for rewriting of the judgment by rendering a definite decision either for the acquittal or conviction under/for each head of charge as well as applicability or otherwise of S.34, P.P.C against the nominated accused person(s).

Akhtar Nawaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 92 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR