TARIQ MEHMOOD vs State S — 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State S. 365-a---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping for ransom cases---Delay in lodging FIR---In kidnapping for ransom cases delay in lodging FIR was not always fatal to the prosecution case as in such type of cases the most usual reaction was for the loved ones to try and search out the missing persons before lodging any FIR. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art.22---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism--- appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Irregularities---accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after his kidnapping for extorting money---allegedly, that the complainant and two other of his family members witnessed the handing over of the ransom to the accused at some other place but admittedly it was dark and no description of the accused was given by any of the three witnesses to the handing over of the ransom---Most surprisingly two of the witnesses who saw the ransom being given to the accused did not appear before the identification parade---What was even of greater significance was that the complainant in his own evidence admitted knowing the accused so how was it possible for him not to recognize the accused and name him to the police especially as he could apparently pick him out at a later identification parade---Said aspect of the case was concealed by the complainant and his other family members from the police which would have negated the necessity of an identification parade---Such conduct in and of itself raised doubt as to the identification of the accused---In the present case, the rules governing a safe identification parade were also largely not followed as for instance all of the dummies were different and not the same which would make the accused stand out---No CNIC's or addresses were taken from most of the dummies---Even in the identification parade the complainant gave no specific role to the accused although such role was later given in evidence by the complainant---Thus, it was doubtful that the complainant correctly identified the accused as the person whom he allegedly handed over the ransom to---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession of accused before the police---Inadmissible in evidence---accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after his kidnapping for extorting money---Confession of accused before the police was inadmissible in evidence and the accused was not taken before a Judicial Magistrate to have his confession recorded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Benefit of doubt must go to the accused by way of right as opposed to concession. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after his kidnapping for extorting money---There was no eye-witness to the abduction or murder of the deceased---No last seen evidence was available in respect of the deceased---Case of the prosecution was that the deceased dressed in his college uniform headed off for College in the morning---Yet it had come on record that there was a strike that day and the College was not open which also begged the question how deceased could have gone shopping when the shops would also have been closed---Prosecution had not proved convincingly that the body which was found was that of the deceased---apparently deceased was identified by the complainant through pictures of his teeth as his face was unrecognizable---Identification by photos of a person's teeth by a loved one was not a meaningful way of identifying a dead person--- Significantly the complainant in his FIR stated that his son was 18 years of age but most other documentary evidence on record placed the deceased as being about 35 years of age which was a significant discrepancy---In fact when the body was later exhumed no DNa match was found between the deceased and the complainant---Medical evidence tended to indicate that the cause of death of the deceased was him being hit by a blunt instrument to the head---However, no recovery was made of any such instrument where the body was found or on the pointation of accused at the time of his arrest---accused had no linkage/ connection to the place where the body was found---allegedly the complainant sent a ransom amount by digital transfer but there was no evidence of that whatsoever---although the complainant and his wife and daughter stated that a ransom demand was made and paid at some other place, no Call Data Record (CDR) was available to support such a demand being made and no recording of such demand was made despite the fact that Citizens-Police Liason Committee (CPLC) had provided the complainant with the relevant recording equipment---No SIM was recovered from the accused during his arrest---No evidence was available as to where the complainant got the alleged five lac ransom from which he allegedly paid the accused and no ransom amount was recovered from the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TARIQ MEHMOOD VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of dead body on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after his kidnapping for extorting money---accused allegedly took the police to the place where the body was discovered---Said fact was irrelevant as the police already knew where that place was and had already removed the body---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

TARIQ MEHMOOD vs State S — 2023 YLR 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR