MUHAMMAD AYOUB vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1914 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.

MUHAMMAD AYOUB VS State Ss. 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence--- Discrepancies and contradictions---Scope--- accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom---Some discrepancies/contradictions existed in the evidence of the abductees but were not material enough to effect the prosecution case especially as the abductees were to endure a very traumatic experience over a long period of time where discrepancies were bound to slip---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AYOUB VS State Ss. 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---abduction---Demand of ransom amount---Scope---accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom---In order to prove a case of kidnapping for ransom no ransom amount needed to be paid or recovered but only proof that a demand for ransom was made---abductee/witness stated in his evidence that after one or two days they obtained from them cell No's of their family members and made conversation with them and after 7 to 8 days the accused recorded their voices with dialogues whereby they were compelling them to convey their demand of ransom amount to our family members and that they understood that by recording their voices for ransom amount such voice recordings were sent to another place to another person belonging to the accused to convey their voices of the ransom demand to their family members---Ransom amount was initially for one crore and 40 tola gold for the release of each person but was later reduced to 15/20 lacs for each person---Other abductee corroborated the ransom demands by the accused and that they would face dire consequences if the ransom was not paid---another abductee also corroborated such ransom demands and threats---Such fact showed that the demand appeared to have been made from another location was corroborated by the CDR which showed that many calls which were made during the period whilst the abductees were in captivity were made to the complainant and that those calls emanated from other Province where one of the absconding kidnappers was from---Such ransom demands were also corroborated by two other witnesses who were both related to the abductees and received the said ransom demands and reported the matter to the police---Ransom demands were made for the release of the abductees which were passed on through the persons holding the abductees in captivity---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons--- appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AYOUB VS State Ss. 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 22---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Test identification parade---Scope---accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom---Identification parade was carried out in respect of accused and despite being a joint identification parade accused was picked out by one of the abductees with a specific role---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AYOUB VS State Ss. 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom---accused persons played no role in actually abducting the abductees from their car which was later found abandoned on the Super Highway and produced at trial but their role was to guard the abductees and assist in the demanding of the ransom for their safe return after threatening them when they were dropped off to them by the other members of the gang who actually carried out the abduction and were now absconders---abductees were all travelling for dinner when they were stopped by another vehicle where upon three armed men alighted whose faces were covered and who robbed them of their wallets and phones before bundling them blind folded into another car and took them away---all three abductees corroborated each other in all material respects in respect of their abduction and their abduction was not particularly challenged at trial and as such the kidnapping of the abductees had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons---appeal was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD AYOUB vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR