ASMAT ULLAH KHAN vs State Benefit of doubt — 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURT

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

ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Once a single loophole/lacuna is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Call Data Record (C.D.R.) not bearing signatures of any authorized officer---Complete---voice transcripts and audio of calls not produced---Effect---C.D.R. was produced in evidence by a police official who, while appearing as witness, deposed that the investigating Officer ("I.O.") directed him to collect the C.D.R. of one of the petitioners (convict) from the Regional Police Officer's Office ("RPO Office"); that he, therefore, received the said data and delivered the same to the I.O. who took it into his custody vide a recovery memo---Careful examination of the said C.D.R. showed that it neither bore the name nor the signature of any authorized officer, nor did it carry the seal of the issuing company---Moreover, the police official acknowledged that the C.D.R. was not sealed and was not accompanied by any covering letter even from the RPO's office---Thus, it could not be safely relied upon in any manner---Neither were the relevant entries indicated in the data, nor were the voice record transcripts produced, which, if available, could have substantiated the point of the prosecution---Mere production of C.D.R., without transcripts of the calls or complete audio recordings, could not be deemed reliable evidence---In addition to call transcripts, it must also be established on record that the individuals at both ends of the call were the same as those whose call data was produced as evidence---Courts must exercise heightened caution when evaluating such evidence, as advancements in science and technology had greatly facilitated the editing and alteration of recordings to suit one's preferences---Being so, the C.D.R. in the present case was of no help to the prosecution in supporting its allegations against the petitioners---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ransom currency notes not marked---Consequential---Stance of both the complainant and the witness was that they first went to a police station and informed the police that they were going to meet one of the petitioners (convict) to hand over the ransom amount and the police instructed them to proceed, and they would follow---If, for the sake of argument, it was believed that both witnesses were stating true facts, then the law required that the said currency notes be marked or signed by an authorized Magistrate to eliminate the possibility of false implication---However, the police did not do so; hence, the alleged recovery of the ransom amount became doubtful and, as such, could not be believed or relied upon for the purpose of convicting the petitioners---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Defective investigation by Investigating Officer (I.O.)---In this case, the I.O. conducted the investigation very casually---He did not consider it appropriate to inquire about the ownership of the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence, allegedly recovered from one of the petitioners (convict)---I.O. failed to investigate the sources from which the complainant arranged the ransom amount---additionally, he did not document the denominations of the currency notes intended for the ransom payment---He did not use the modern technology of geo fencing and acknowledged that he made no effort to determine the location of the other petitioner (convict) who made the alleged calls to the complainant demanding the ransom---Furthermore, the I.O. concluded that two cars were used in this incident, owned by two different persons, for the transportation of the abductees from one place to another---However, neither of these individuals was investigated or cited as a prosecution witness---During cross examination, one of the abductees disclosed that he and the other abductee were confined in two different places, owned by two different persons, yet, neither of these individuals was investigated or presented as a witness---all these facts and circumstances made the case of the prosecution highly doubtful---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Recovery of incriminating articles---Inconsequential when ocular account is doubtful---In the present case the prosecution had shown recoveries of firearms, cars allegedly used in the commission of the offence, belongings of the abductees from the petitioners (convicts), and the ropes by which the abductees were tied---However such recoveries did not support the case of the prosecution for the reason that these recoveries were corroborative pieces of evidence and were relevant only when the primary evidence, i.e., the ocular account, inspired confidence---But, the ocular account in this case was full of contradictions and did not inspire confidence---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State arts. 184 & 185---Short order released by the Supreme Court containing an inadvertent error---Rectification of such error in the detailed reasons---Supreme Court has the power to correct such type of error in the short order while recording the detailed reasons. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Doubtful occurrence---Petitioners (convicts) were known to the complainant---In this scenario, the alleged kidnapping of the complainant's brother and his business partner, along with the demand for ransom, did not seem reasonable when the complainant did not allege any motive or enmity behind the incident---It was also surprising that one of the petitioners contacted the complainant three times from the same number and provided a venue for the payment of the ransom amount a day in advance---Moreover, one of the alleged eye-witnesses was extraordinarily daring and courageous, willingly accompanying the complainant to hand over the ransom amount to the petitioner---On the other hand, the petitioners were so courteous that they did not object to whoever might accompany the complainant to hand over the ransom amount---Similarly, the police succeeded in arresting the petitioner without any violence on their part, even though they (the petitioners) were equipped with deadly firearms, according to the police---Primarily, the story of the prosecution appeared to be a dramatic one---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State S. 431---Death of convict (appellant)---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Under the law, a criminal appeal abates on the death of an appellant, but section 431, Cr.P.C. provides an exception to this general rule---It provides that an appeal against a sentence of the fine shall not abate by reason of death of an appellant, because it is not a matter, which affects his person, it would certainly affect his estate---Thus, upon the death of an appellant, his appeal to the extent of a portion of the sentence of imprisonment, abates whereas, the appeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of an appellant, shall not abate and is to be heard on merits and in accordance with the settled principle of criminal justice. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Ss. 365-a & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Inconsistencies in statements of abductees---Consequential---Evidence of both the abductees contained numerous inconsistencies, which cast doubt on their veracity as truthful witnesses---They had made certain notable improvements in their statements compared to those previously recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the Police---Essentially, their claim that the petitioners (convicts) put both of them in the trunk of a sedan car, and they allegedly traveled for two and a half hours, was implausible, as it was highly unlikely that two grown men could fit together into the trunk of such a vehicle---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "a" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs.

ASMAT ULLAH KHAN vs State Benefit of doubt — 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD