STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION

It is hereby presumed that the Honorable High Court has the jurisdiction to decide the
foregoing criminal appeal. Therefore, neither of the parties can raise a question of
jurisdiction of the Court. However, the judges may ask the questions as to jurisdiction of the
Court and if so the parties shall be bound to answer the same.

ISSUES/ QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant, Udas Khan, documented the criminal appeal
testing the judgment of the preliminary court on 16.04.2024, which was after a huge period
following his conviction on 24.03.2021. The question emerges whether this delay can be
approved under Area 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

2. Sufficiency of Prosecutions Evidence: The preliminary court indicted Udas Khan in view of
the evidence introduced by the arraignment, including observer declarations and significant
reports. The question here is whether the arraignment demonstrated its case for certain, and if
not, whether the appellant's conviction ought to be subdued.

3. Representation of the Appellant: There are perceptions with respect to the portrayal of the
appellant through counsel during the preliminary. Regardless of being offered different chances,
the appellant neglected to at first draw in a guidance. The question is whether the appellant was
appropriately addressed through a direction under the steady gaze of the preliminary court, and if
not, whether this is an adequate ground to suppress the condemned judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Abras Khan is a labourer by profession and is residing in Blue Housing Scheme (BHS),
Nawa Killi, Quetta. His younger brother Shamshir Khan is also having a house in the
same colony. Their paternal uncle Udas Khan has been residing along with his family
in Sandeep Abad, some 12 kilometers away from BHS.

2. In the morning of 15.12.2017, Shamshir Khan was in City Shopping Mall where he met
with his uncle Udas Khan and a discussion over a domestic issue occurred between
them and Shamshir Khan has altercated Udas Khan.

3. On 15.12.2017 at 1:45 PM Shamshir Khan was killed in his house in presence of Abras
Khan, Shumar Khan, the maternal uncle of the deceased and Adan Khan, his maternal
cousin.

4. That on the same day at 7:30 PM Abras Khan has lodged an FIR in the Police station of
Nawa Killi against Udas Khan and his son Paras Khan to the following effect:

He (Abras Khan) is labourer by profession and are two brothers. His younger
brother Shamshir Khan had altercated over domestic matter with Udas Khan
whereupon said Udas Khan was annoyed with him. On 15.12.2017, he along
with his brother Shamshir Khan, uncle Shumar Khan and maternal cousin
cousin Adan Khan were available in the house of his brother Shamshir Khan,
in the meantime, at about 01.45 P.M, they saw and identified accused namely
Udas Khan with DBBL gun and Paras Khan with pistol who entered in the
house. On coming, accused Udas Khan asked his brother Shamshir Khan that
he has altercated with him therefore he will not spare him, saying so, he fired
two rounds straightly at him with intention to commit his murder which hit him
and he fell down, thereafter, both the accused fled away. He then saw and
found his brother having firearm injuries on his neck and armpit which were
bleeding and he was lying dead. He intimated the incident to the police who
after getting conducted the postmortem, handed over the dead body of
deceased to the complainant and after funeral ritual, he came at police station
and got registered the FIR against the accused.

5. The Investigation Officer submitted the usual report to the court of the concerned
Judicial Magistrate – I, Quetta who then sent the record to the Court of Session, Quetta
for trial.

6. Later on, the investigation officer submitted final challan U/S.512 Cr.PC showing all
the accused as absconders and learned trial Court after observing codal formalities
 declared the accused as proclaimed offenders and then kept the case against them on
dormant file till their arrest vide order dated 18-04-2019.

7. Subsequently, Udas Khan was apprehended by the police at afternoon on 07.08.2020

from his house and produced before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate on
10.08.2020 under supplementary report who then sent up the case under section 190 (b)
Cr.PC to the Court of Sessions where the main case was pending.

8. On 20.08.2020, it was observed by learned trial Court that the offence involved, was
entailing capital punishment, therefore, the charge could not be framed against the
accused on account of his failure to engage a counsel.

9. However, on 22-09-2020, on the basis of the Investigation Report under section 173
Cr.P.C against the Udas Khan, the accused. Hence, the formal charge was framed
against him to which he pleaded not guilty. This charge was framed without being
engaging a counsel by the accused and thereafter three adjournments were granted to
accused for engaging a counsel but he failed to engage the counsel as usual.

10. The case dairies dated 27-08-2020, 06-09-2020 and 14-09-2020 reflects that defence
counsel was present. However, the case diaries dated 08.10.2020,16.10.2020 and
21.10.2020 reported the learned defence counsel being absent. Further, in the case diary
dated 28.10.2020, it was observed that the accused has not engaged yet his council.
However, on 01.11.2020, the accused finally engaged his counsel.

11. On 21.10.2020, PW-01, SHO Jander Khan was recorded while observing that despite
several chances the appellant failed to engage his counsel.

12. To establish the accusation against appellant/accused, the prosecution examined all the
five witnesses i.e PW-01 SIO/SHO Jander Khan, PW-02 Complainant Abras Khan,
PW-03 Tapedar Faaz Guman, PW-04 medical officer Dr.Nauzen and PW-05 ASI
Janbar Dad, who all produced certain relevant documents in support of their statements.
Thereafter, the learned State Counsel closed its side.

13. The accused in his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the
allegations leveled against him by pleading his innocence. However, he neither
examined himself on oath in disproof of the charge nor led any evidence in his defence.

14. The learned trial Court on evaluation of the material brought on record and hearing
counsels for the parties convicted the Udas Khan, the accused and sentenced him to life
imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021.
15. The accused, Udas Khan, was behind the bars during the entire proceedings of the trial
and after conviction he remained in the jail. However, from fail he managed to file a
criminal appeal on 16.04.2024, to the Honorable High Court of Balochistan,
challenging the veracity of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2020 again without
engaging a counsel in this regard.

16. The Honorable High Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 has appointed a counsel for the
appellant on state’s expenses.

17. The appeal has been fixed for hearing on 06.06.2024. Following are the questions
pending before the court to decide:

A. Whether the delay in filing the instant appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1908?

B. Whether the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond every shadow of
reasonable doubt before the trial court and if not, whether the conviction of the
appellant shall be quashed?

C. Whether the appellant was properly represented through a counsel before the trial
court and if not, whether this is a sufficient ground to quash the impugned judgment
dated 24.03.2021?

SUMMARY OF THE PLEADING

 The delay in Udas Khan's documenting of his criminal appeal, which brought about his
life imprisonment, can be ascribed to a few elements. His detainment, right off the bat,
restricted his capacity to get to legal assets and explore the intricacies of the legal
interaction. Also, monetary requirements might have blocked his capacity to manage
the cost of legal portrayal and cover court expenses. Notwithstanding these difficulties,
Udas Khan showed his aim to challenge the conviction once he approached legal help,
as evidenced by his inevitable appeal recorded after the court appointed counsel for
him. During the preliminary, the arraignment depended on different bits of proof,
including observer declarations and incidental proof, to lay out Udas Khan's
responsibility. Notwithstanding, Udas Khan's inability to introduce a defense
debilitated his situation. The shortfall of legal portrayal raised reasonableness concerns,
underscoring the court's commitment to guarantee fair preliminaries by giving
admittance to legal direction, consequently maintaining the uprightness of the legal
interaction

PLEADINGS / ARGUMENTS
1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant, Udas Khan, recorded the
criminal appeal testing the judgment of the preliminary court on
16.04.2024, which was after a critical period following his conviction on
24.03.2021. The inquiry emerges whether this delay can be supported
under Area 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908

 Reasons for Delay: The appellant, Udas Khan, was convicted and condemned to
life imprisonment on 24.03.2021. In any case, he recorded the criminal appeal
testing the judgment just on 16.04.2024, which shows a delay of roughly three years.
The reasons behind this delay ought to be examined.
 Incarceration: Udas Khan was imprisoned following his conviction. Being in jail
might have restricted his admittance to legal assets, including the capacity to record
an appeal promptly. The limitations forced by imprisonment might have added to the
delay.
 Complex Legal Process: The legal process, particularly in criminal cases including
major allegations like homicide, can be complicated and overpowering for people
without legal preparation. Udas Khan, not being legally prepared, may have
confronted difficulties in figuring out the redrafting process and exploring the
procedural prerequisites for filing an appeal.
 Financial Constraints: Udas Khan, being a worker, could have confronted
monetary constraints in recruiting legal counsel to help him with filing the appeal.
The expenses related with legal representation and court charges might have been
restrictive for him, further delaying the appeal process.
 Appointment of Counsel: It's critical that Udas Khan figured out how to document
the appeal solely after the Fair High Court selected a counsel for him without regard
to the state. This proposes that he might have been ignorant about his freedoms to
legal representation or unfit to manage the cost of legal counsel before in the
process.
 Efforts for filed Appeal: Notwithstanding the delay, Udas Khan ultimately stepped
up and document the appeal once he knew about the choice or approached legal help.
This shows his purpose to challenge the conviction and look for legal review, though
after an impressive delay.

2. Sufficiency of Prosecution's Evidence : The preliminary court convicted Udas

Khan in view of the evidence introduced by the indictment, including observer
declarations and important reports. The inquiry here is whether the indictment
demonstrated its case without question, and if not, whether the appellant's conviction
ought to be suppressed.
  Witness Testimonies: The indictment depended on the declarations of five
observers, including PW-01 SIO/SHO Jander Khan, PW-02 Complainant Abras
Khan, PW-03 Tapedar Faaz Guman, PW-04 clinical official Dr. Nauzen, and PW-
05 ASI Janbar Father. These observers gave significant data with respect to the
occasions paving the way to the homicide of Shamshir Khan, the presence of the
denounced at the crime location, and the ensuing filing of the FIR. Their
declarations, if solid and reliable, could lay out areas of strength for an against the
charged.
 Documentary Evidence: The arraignment likewise introduced specific important
archives on the side of its case. These archives could incorporate the FIR,
posthumous report, and some other evidence gathered during the examination.
Assuming these archives confirm the declarations of the observers and give extra
evidence connecting the charged to the wrongdoing, they could fortify the
indictment's case.
 Conditional Evidence: The conditions encompassing the homicide, like the quarrel
between Shamshir Khan and the denounced before in the day, the presence of the
charged at the crime location, and the gun wounds supported by the person in
question, could by and large comprise fortuitous evidence pointing towards the
responsibility of the blamed. Assuming that the indictment effectively lays out a
chain of occasions prompting the commission of the wrongdoing and ensnares the
charged for certain, it could reinforce its case.
 Defense's Failure to Present Evidence: It's significant that the denounced, in spite
of being offered the chance, introduced no evidence with all due respect. This could
infer an absence of counter-evidence or rejoinder against the indictment's case. The
disappointment of the protection to introduce evidence could debilitate the guard's
situation and further reinforce the arraignment's case.
 Standard of Verification: In criminal cases, the arraignment is expected to
demonstrate the responsibility of the blamed past each shadow for reasonable
uncertainty. Assuming that the evidence introduced by the indictment fulfills this
severe guideline and rules out reasonable uncertainty in regards to the responsibility
of the denounced, then, at that point, the conviction ought to stand.

3. Representation of the Appellant: There are perceptions with respect to the

representation of the appellant through counsel during the preliminary. Regardless of
being offered various chances, the appellant neglected to at first draw in a counsel. The
inquiry is whether the appellant was appropriately addressed through a counsel under
the watchful eye of the preliminary court, and if not, whether this is an adequate ground
to subdue the criticized judgment.
 Right to Legal Representation: Each denounced individual has the essential right
to be addressed by legal counsel during preliminary procedures. This right
guarantees that the blamed can successfully introduce their guard, grasp the legal
methods, and defend their legal advantages. In this case, notwithstanding being
given open doors, the appellant at first neglected to connect with a counsel, which
might have undermined his capacity to mount a strong guard.
 Impact on Fairness of Trial: The shortfall of legal representation for the appellant
during basic phases of the preliminary raises worries about the reasonableness of the
procedures. Without satisfactory legal direction, the appellant might not have had the
option to completely grasp the charges against him, figure out his legal freedoms, or
actually challenge the arraignment's case. This might have brought about a
disadvantageous situation for the appellant and possibly impacted the result of the
preliminary.
 Multiple Opportunities Given: It's prominent that the preliminary court furnished
the appellant with different chances to draw in legal counsel. In spite of these open
doors, the appellant neglected to get representation for a huge period, which might
show carelessness or failure to successfully practice his legal freedoms. Be that as it
may, it's fundamental to consider any possible obstructions or difficulties the
appellant might have looked in connecting with counsel, like monetary constraints or
absence of legal information.
 Impact on Judgment: The shortfall of legal representation during significant phases
of the preliminary might have affected the judgment delivered by the preliminary
court. Without skillful legal representation, the appellant might not have had the
option to introduce relieving evidence, challenge the indictment's case really, or raise
legal guards. This might have prompted a circumstance where the appellant's
advantages were not satisfactorily addressed, possibly bringing about a shameful or
incorrect judgment.
 Legal Obligation to Ensure Fair Trial: The court has a legal commitment to
guarantee that preliminaries are led reasonably and as per the standards of regular
equity. This incorporates guaranteeing that charged people are given legal
representation and managed the cost of the potential chance to satisfactorily
introduce their safeguard. Any inability to fulfill these guidelines could subvert the
trustworthiness of the preliminary process and raise questions about the unwavering
quality of the judgment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
• Delay in Filing Appeal: Given the conditions of his detainment, absence of legal
preparation, and monetary requirements, Udas Khan could demand mercy in the use of
constraint periods for recording his appeal.
• Legal Representation: Udas Khan could contend that his absence of legal portrayal
during basic phases of the preliminary disregarded his right to a fair preliminary,
possibly prompting an unjustifiable result. He might look for cures like a retrial with
sufficient legal portrayal or a survey of his case.
• Standard of Proof: In the event that there are questions in regards to the indictment's
capacity to fulfill the guideline of verification for certain, Udas Khan might challenge
the legitimacy of the judgment and solicitation a survey in light of the adequacy of proof
introduced during the preliminary.
• Fair Trial: Udas Khan could state that the shortfall of legal portrayal sabotaged the
decency of the preliminary interaction and may look for help, for example, a survey of
the preliminary procedures to guarantee consistence with legal norms and standards of
regular equity.