PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1612 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dawood Shehzad vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1612 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 MLD 1612 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
MLD
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1612 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dawood Shehzad vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 7---Q; S. 164

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1612 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dawood Shehzad VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 164---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Evidence or witness produced through modern device and techniques---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after abducting him for ransom---Complainant testified that after abduction of his son, he had received ransom calls for three crores on his cell phone from a cell number---Call Data Record (CDR) and verisys were secured by Investigating Officer through recovery memo. which transpired that ransom calls were made through two cell numbers, which were registered in the names of two witnesses---Said witnesses stated during interrogation that they had given the SIMs to their friends---Statements of both the witnesses were recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, by Judicial Magistrate, who testified and affirmed recording of their statements, substantially proving the factum mentioned herein before in view of art. 164 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which categorically stipulates that the Court may, if deemed appropriate, allow to produce any evidence or witnesses recorded through modern devices or techniques, which led and connected accused for demanding ransom in lieu of release of deceased, hence the objection of the defence with regard to the admissibility of the CDR stood ruled out---Later on a mobile with the SIM used for making calls for ransom was recovered---appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were allowed---appeal filed by two accused persons "D" & "I" were partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English