' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-2003 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under section 302 P.P.C. And has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000, in case of default of fine he has to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The appellant has been further directed to pay compensation of Rs.100,000 each to the heirs of deceased Mst. Begi and Jan Muhammad Noorani.
2. Mr. S. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without going into the merits of the case the matter should be remanded to the learned trial Court on account of irregularities committed at two stages.
3. Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah has pointed out that in this case two persons namely Mst. Begi and Jan Muhammad are alleged to have been murdered by the accused/appellant. However, the learned trial Court while framing charge on 9-1-1997 referred to the murder of Mst. Begi wife of appellant only. After the framing of charge P.W.1 Bhaley Dino, P.W.2 Dr. Noor Muhammad and P.W.3 All Bux were examined. ' Subsequently, on 15-11-2000 DDA submitted application under section 227, Cr.P.C.
Pointing out that two murders were committed but in the charge name of deceased Jan Muhammad does not appear due to error and a request was made for alteration of charge. The learned trial Court allowed the application and framed the amended charge on 31-1-2001. After framing of amended charge the learned D.D.A. Submitted a statement that there was no need of re-examining the witnesses already examined. However, no opportunity of recalling the witnesses was provided to the appellant as required under section 231, Cr.P.C. Mr. Madad AR Shah has submitted that this has caused prejudice to the appellant/accused as under the charge framed on 19-1-1997 he was required to defend himself for the murder of one person only, while under the amended charge he was required to defend himself for the commission of murder of two persons and in fact has been convicted for the commission of murder of two persons.
4. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has next pointed out that another irregularity was committed at the conclusion of proceedings when the statement of accused was recorded. In the statement of accused the name, father's name, religion, caste, age, occupation and residence columns are blank. At the end of statement there is a thumb-impression but it is not written as to whose thumb- impression was taken.
5. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the accused/appellant to recall the three witnesses who were examined before the amendment in the charge and further cross-examine the witnesses, if so desire. Secondly, the statement of accused be recorded afresh and thereafter the Advocates for the parties be heard and fresh decision be given.
6. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has submitted that during the pendency of case before the trial Court the appellant was on bail and after conviction he was remanded in custody. Since with the remand of the case, the case shall again be pending before the trial Court, therefore, the position qua the appellant as prevailing before the judgment may also be restored and the appellant be directed to be released on bail.
7. The learned Additional A.-G. Mr. Masood A. Noorani and learned Assistant A.G. Mr. Rasheed A.
Qureshi have not denied the above facts and with their consent the impugned-judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with direction to give opportunity to the appellant in terms of section 231, Cr.P.C. And if the appellant makes a request for recalling the three witnesses named in the earlier part of this judgment, those witnesses be called and further opportunity of cross-examination be given to the learned Advocate for the accused/appellant. Thereafter the statement of accused/appellant be recorded afresh and after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties fresh judgment be given. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1995, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment. The appellant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The appeal is allowed as above. The listed-application has been rendered infructuous, which stands disposed of accordingly.