Sardar Sher Muhammad Rind Baloch S/O Haji Sardar Khan Rind vs The State
Balochistan High Court · 2024 · Before Hon'ble Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Malakhail
Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th January 2013 (“impugned judgment”) passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court-II Quetta, whereby the appellant along with the other co-accused persons after being declared proclaimed offenders, were convicted under Section 302 PPC to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200,000/ each to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and under Section 324 PPC to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and were also convicted under Section 21-L of ATA 1997 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (06) years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that in pursuance of Fard-e-Bayan submitted by complainant Abdul Jabbar, an FIR No. 115 of 2010 was registered with Police Station Sariab Quetta, with the allegation that on 05th July 2010, at about 4:45 p.m. when Mir Ahmed Nawaz came out from his house and was going on Qambrani Road, after a while the complainant alongwith Saaddullah Jatoi and Zahoor Criminal ATAAppeal No. 316 of 2024. - 2 - Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. Ahmed (Mir Ahmed Nawaz’s driver) also came out of their house at Qambrani Road, when at about 05:10 p.m. three unknown armed persons came there on motorcycle and made firing on Mir Ahmed Nawaz, when Zahoor Ahmed and Saadullah Jatoi rushed to rescue Mir Ahmed Nawaz, they were also targeted to firing. Thereafter the accused persons made their escape good towards Killi Qambrani. It was further averred that Mir Ahmed Nawaz, Zahoor Ahmed, Saaddullah Jatoi and a child namely Nauroz Khan (passerby), were severely injured. The injured persons were taken to the hospital, where Mir Ahmed Nawaz succumbed to injuries on his way to hospital, while the child was died in the hospital, therefore, the instant FIR was lodged. The learned trial court on conclusion of trial passed the impugned judgment, whereby the appellant was convicted in the manner stated herein above, the judgment whereof is impugned herein.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was nominated in the instant case on the basis of supplementary statement, while he was unaware about the registration of the FIR against him, as due to enmity he was not able to visit Quetta. He further contended that the proclamations published in newspapers were not in the appellant’s knowledge nor he heard from anyone that the case is registered against him and he has been declared proclaimed offender by the learned special court, he finally urged for remand of the matter to the trial court for denovo trial against the appellant.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor General did not oppose the request of the appellant. Criminal ATAAppeal No. 316 of 2024. - 3 - Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. It would be advantageous to reproduce Section 21-L of the Act which runs as under: “21-L. Punishment for an absconder.- Whoever being accused of an offence under this Act, absconds and avoids arrest or evades appearance before any inquiry, investigation or Court proceedings…
Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…