Ramz Ali Gopang vs State S — 2024 MLD 1105 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.

Ramz Ali Gopang VS State S. 365-a---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable securities etc., possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Conviction, alteration of---accused was charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---Record showed that accused demanded ransom of Rs.200,000/- on mobile phone from complainant then complainant sent Rs.23000/- to accused through an online mode on cellular number given by accused---Complainant could not make arrangement of remaining ransom then he went to police station and lodged FIR---Complainant, after registration of FIR, collected information from mobile company and traced the location of the accused and he was arrested and his son was recovered---abductee boy had deposed that he was kidnapped by accused and other co-accused and confined at different places---abductee had further deposed that accused was arrested by the police and pistol was recovered from him---Private witness was also examined before the Trial Court and he had also narrated the same story and implicated the accused---Complainant, abductee and witness were cross-examined at length by defence, but their testimony could not be shaken on material points---Re-examination of the evidence showed that offence under S.365, P.P.C, was proved by the prosecution but conviction under S.365-a, P.P.C, was not sustainable under the law for the reasons that complainant had deposed that accused had telephoned him for payment of the ransom of Rs. 200,000/-, and he paid Rs.23,000/- to the accused through an online mode but record of telephone used by the accused and complainant had not been produced before the Trial Court, to satisfy the Court that accused had actually made demand for ransom---Prosecution had failed to prove that complainant paid Rs.23,000/- to the accused as ransom---No documentary evidence/call data had been produced before the Trial Court---Unfortunately, Investigation Officer failed to collect the call data regarding conversation/contact between the accused and complainant, besides record of online transfer---appeal was partly allowed by converting the conviction of the accused from S.365-a, P.P.C, to 365, P.P.C, and he was sentenced to seven years.

Ramz Ali Gopang vs State S — 2024 MLD 1105 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD