PARA DIN vs State S — 2022 YLRN 53 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

PARA DIN VS State S. 363---Kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of ten---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against the accused was of abducting four children of the complainant---Record showed that the complainant, who was a mother of the allegedly abducted children in her testimony gave the same account of the facts which was given by her in the FIR, which reflected that the complainant had given a true account of the facts of the case---Other star witness of the case remained consistent in his testimony in terms of material and corroborated the statement of the complainant---Statements of complainant and witness also corroborated the statement of the Police Officials who recovered the abducted children of the complainant from possession of petitioner from a room in a dairy farm---Statement of the complainant was supported by the witnesses and left no room for doubt in prosecution story and nexus of the offender with the crime he had been charged with---Accused did not keep the children in any residential house but kept them in a room of a dairy farm, which was not a house for residential purpose and the accused concealed the minors at some secrete place after their abduction---Circumstances established that the minors had been removed from the custody of the complainant and they were illegally kept in concealment by the accused---No doubt that brother of the accused was the father of the minors but that fact alone did not mean that he had a license to forcibly snatch the minors from the custody of their mother at gunpoint and to hide them at some secret place in order to frustrate the process of the law and the court---Father could take the benefit of the exception of S.361, P.P.C., provided he satisfied two conditions, firstly, if he established that he in good faith believed himself to be entitled to the custody of his minor children and secondly his act must not be for any unlawful or immoral purpose---Said exception of S.361, P.P.C. extended to two situations, first when a father removed his illegitimate child and the second when any person removed a child in good faith believing himself to be entitled to his custody---Accused, being uncle of the minors, was in no manner entitled to their lawful custody and had nothing to do with the custody or guardianship of those minors in the life time of their mother and father---Accused had failed to point out any illegality, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment---Revision petition being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

PARA DIN vs State S — 2022 YLRN 53 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported