ALI AKBAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2643 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.

ALI AKBAR 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---Delay of one day in lodging the FIR--- Inconsequential--- accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount---Record showed that there was a delay of a single day in the lodging of FIR, but the same was explained by the complainant in deposing that they had started searching for the abductee on their own and when they were left hopeless he lodged the FIR---No suggestion was made to the complainant during his cross-examination that he had lodged the FIR after due deliberation, which impliedly reflected that such a delay was rather natural and did not serve any ulterior motives---Even otherwise, delay alone in the lodging of FIR was never a sufficient ground for acquittal and could not be used as ammunition to completely disregard the prosecution case--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI AKBAR 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---accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount---In the present case, the identification parade of the accused was conducted through two witnesses---Said accused was initially not known to both of them and was seen at the time of exchange of ransom for the first time---For an identification parade to be properly held, the accused must not be shown to the victims before the identification itself---To ensure that, Judicial Magistrate ensured that the face of the accused was hidden and he inquired from accused whether he had been shown to any of the witnesses to which he replied in the negative---as such, the identification parade was carried forward---Witness identified accused and stated that he went to a Market along with son of complainant/ witness with Rs. 5,000,000/ - and gave the said amount to him---Witness/son of complainant also identified the accused and stated that he had gone to a market with witness and had cash of Rs. 5,150,000/- which he gave to accused---Identification parade was conducted while following all the guidelines and there were no legal defects therein---Defence contended that the identification parade of the other accused persons was not conducted through the abductee himself, however the same was not necessary, firstly because he had never seen accused persons as they had stayed outside and were involved in the collection of ransom and secondly because other two accused persons were both identified by the abductee in Court and such identification inspired confidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI AKBAR VS State Ss. 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount---Defence plea was that accused were arrested on demand for a bribe from police; that the kidnapping took place on 06.02.2018 and the abductee was let go on 31.05.2018; that arrests of the two accused persons took place on 09.06.2018, which was after the release of the abductee and they (accused persons) were already known to the police by then---Validity---Statements of defence witnesses merely appeared to be belated arrangements made by the well-wishers of the accused persons which had no bearing on the outcome of the case---Even otherwise, defence witnesses had not been able to establish any ill-will or animosity on the part of the abductee and the complainant party, to whom they were not even known before the incident, who had otherwise fully implicated the accused persons for the commission of the offence---another defence plea raised was that Rs. 10.15 million, that is the ransom, was arranged by the accused persons and given to the police, but it was instead foisted on them---It was a matter of record that the complainant had filed an application under S. 516-a, Cr.P.C., for collecting the ransom amount back and at no point did any of the accused persons object to the same besides taking the said stance in their S. 342, Cr.P.C. statements nor was the said order impugned before the appropriate forum---Thus, accused persons could not seek to gain benefit from the same---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI AKBAR 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---Related and interested witnesses---accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount---Defence objection regarding the prosecution witnesses being related to the abductee and interested was of little, if any, assistance to the accused persons---Despite the close relationship of the complainant and his son with abductee, their evidence after careful consideration was found trustworthy---Mere relationship with the victim was not a ground to discard otherwise trustworthy evidence provided that there was no ill will or enmity between the witnesses and the accused, which was not the situation in the present case since the parties were not even known to each other---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALI AKBAR 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---Call Data Record available on record---accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount---Call Data Record available on record showed calls from various international numbers and SIMs recovered from two accused persons at the time of their arrest were also shown in the same Call Data Record report as being in contact with each other and with witness/son of the complainant which further corroborated the prosecution version---allegedly, Call Data Record was not verified through an expert witness nor was the issuer examined---However, that at most was a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

ALI AKBAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR