1. The appellants have called in question the judgment dated 19-6-1988, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years and pay fine of Rs,2,000 each and in case of default to further undergo R.I. For six months and if the fine of Rs,2,000 is recovered may be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as the complainant is reported to have been murdered and the case is pending trial against the appellants. Complainant Haji GhulamQadir lodged report on 15-5-1979 at 5-30 p.m. With Police Station Bagirji, stating therein that he had gone to Sukkur for purchasing articles for his shop, while he was returning from Sukkur on his bicycle and when he reached at Katcha Road near Farash at about 1- 00 p.m.; accused Gulzar armed with iron-bar, Ghulam Shabbir armed with country-made pistol emerged out from the Khabar tree and asked the complainant to get down from the bicycle and that he will not be spared today. Saying so, accused Gulzar gave iron-bar blows to the complainant on his head, who started bleeding; co-accused Shabbir fired pistol at the complainant but the same was missed. The complainant raised cries, which attracted P.W. Dur Muhammad and P.W. Muhammad Hatim. Accused persons seeing the P.Ws. Ran away towards the eastern side. The complainant and P.Ws. Chased the accused and apprehended them near Government Tube-well thereafter they brought both the accused at P.P. Abad and on the way they also secured missed fire cartridge. A.S.-I. Incharge P.P. Abad was not available and P.P. Therefore, the complainant left the accused at P.P. Abad and went at Police- Station Bagirji and lodged the report. Police after usual investigation, challaned the accused persons. Charge for an offence under section 307 read with section 34, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.
2. Prosecution, in support of its case examined complainant Haji Ghulam Qadir as Exh.6; P.W. Hatim as Exh.8; Muhammad Siddique as Exh.9; Medical Officer Dr. Atama Ram Exh.11, Mashir Wali Dino Exh.12; S.H.O. Qambar Ali Exh.17; and A.S.-I. Hamidullah Exh.18, while P.W. Dur Muhammad was given up by A.P.P. Vide statement Exh.10 and he closed his side as Exh.9. I have heard Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro, learned State Counsel. At the very outset Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants has raised the ground that the judgment delivered by the trial Court is not in accordance with provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C'.
3. When she was asked, as to why it is in violative of section 367, Cr.P.C. Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire evidence of the witnesses have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court and only some portions of the evidence have been taken into account by the trial Court and further she contended that the cross-examination of the witnesses have not been taken into account by the trial Court. According to her section 367, Cr.P.C. Provides that the trial Judge, while delivering the judgment, has to discuss each and every point. Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the impugned judgment has not been recorded by the trial Court in accordance with the para meters laid down by the Superior Courts and therefore, the judgment is contrary to the provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C. And submitted that it is a fit case for remand. Nextly, Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants has, drawn my attention on the statement of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. And has led much stress with vehements that the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Did not bear the signature of the appellants and further more the certificate has not been written by the Presiding Officer in his own hand-writing and contended with full force that there is violation of section 364(2)(3), Cr.P.C. Which amounts an illegality and not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. And that the case may be remanded. Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro, learned State Counsel has agreed with the contentions raised by Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants and has given his no objection for the remand of the case.
4. I have heard Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro, learned State Counsel; with their assistance have gone through the record and proceedings of the case and other material available on record. I find that the statement of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Did not bear their signatures and the certificate has not been written by the Presiding Officer in his own handwriting. I have also gone through the contents of section 364(2)(3), Cr.P.C.
5. And have found substance and weight in the arguments rendered by Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants. I have also gone through the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment has not been written in accordance with the provisions of section 367 Cr.P.C. Since Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro, learned State Counsel has given no objection for the remand of the case, I am fully in agreement with the contentions of Ms. Zahida Lanjar, learned counsel for the appellants that entire evidence has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and remand the case to the trial Court to commence the A proceedings from the stage of recording the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The trial Court is further directed to re-write the judgment in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C. This criminal appeal is disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.