Sher vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 328 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Sher VS State Ss. 302(b), 114 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contents of judgment---Conviction awarded beyond the charge---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of three sons of complainant by firing---Record showed that the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court was not in the legal format as described in S. 367, Cr.P.C---Section 367 Cr.P.C obligated the Court to deliver a formal judgment at the end of trial---Said Section further prescribed the format of the judgment, which shall comprise three components: (i) the points for determination, (ii) the reasons, providing justification for the sentence or order of acquittal, and (iii) the decision with corresponding order---Impugned judgment of conviction lacked all the three mandatory components of a valid judgment as mentioned in S.367, Cr.P.C.---Impugned judgment of conviction was violative of S.367, Cr.P.C---Moreover, it was on the record that on 17-03-2017, Trial Court categorically charged the convict/appellant under a single head i.e. for his alleged abetment in the occurrence---On the contrary, Trial Court had convicted the appellant for causing intentional death of deceased sons of complainant and sharing common intention punishable under S. 34, P.P.C---Such deviation of the Trial Court was neither mentioned in the impugned judgment nor the Trial Court at any stage of trial altered the charge by exercising jurisdiction under S.227, Cr.P.C, nor was the same justified with any cogent reasons---Prosecution's case restedon the oral testimony of three eye-witnesses and the corroboratory evidence which consisted of the recovery of crime empties, blood stained soil and last worn clothes of the deceased---All the three eye-witnesses implicated the convict/appellant for his issuing command to the principal accused at the place of occurrence---After a thorough examination of the prosecution evidence on record pertaining to the charge of abetment, the prosecution evidence on the particular charge was insufficient to sustain the conviction passed against the convict/appellant, lacking crucial elements necessary to establish abetment---In the impugned judgment of conviction, the Trial Court had neither discussed the prosecution evidence-with reference to the particular charge of abetment nor had recorded a singular reason for passing the conviction and capital punishment against the convict/appellant---Mere reproducing of the statements of witnesses in the judgment did not fulfill the legal requirement of S.367, Cr.P.C.---Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against the convict/appellant was incorrect and flawed, therefore warranted reversal---Further, it was found that the convict/ appellant at the relevant time of the occurrence was empty handed and that regarding his alleged abetment there was no evidence on the record---Therefore, the sentence passed by the Trial Court against the convict/appellant was set-aside---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Sher vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 328 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ