Mumtaz vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 830 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.

Mumtaz VS State Ss. 365-a, 148 & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three weeks in lodging FIR---Consequential---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons kidnapped many persons on the force of weapons and demanded ransom of Rs. ten lac for their release---as per record, SHO received spy information that dacoits abducted two persons which was confirmed to him by cousin of abductees, however he did not lodge any FIR nor started any investigation even against unknown persons in order to recover the abductees---On 04.03.2011 cousin of two abductees came to the Police Station and informed the SHO that the abductees had been taken by the accused and his gang who had demanded a ransom of Rs. 10 lac, who also told him the names of the dacoit group however he refused to lodge an FIR---Subsequently the SHO lodged the FIR containing all the names of the alleged abductors---Delay of three weeks in lodging the FIR had not been explained at all and significantly the person who gave the complainant the names of the nine suspects who were named in the FIR was not examined as a witness to corroborate that fact---Record was silent as to how the nine persons named in the FIR came to be suspects in the eyes of cousin of abductees or were simply added to the FIR by the complainant on his own whim in order to falsely implicate them as they allegedly belonged to a dacoit group---In kidnapping cases generally a few days delay in lodging the FIR was permissible as the Courts appreciated that the initial concern of the family was in tracing out the missing person rather than immediately going to the police---In this case however the police knew of the incident three weeks in advance and did not do anything---This was a long delay in lodging the FIR even in a kidnapping for ransom case and had not been explained adequately at all which gave the police plenty of time to cook up a false case against the accused which delay was extremely damaging to the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mumtaz vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 830 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD