MUHAMMAD FARRUKH vs State S — 2024 PLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH VS State S. 7 (3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 46-A & 164---Abduction of minor for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence through modern devices---Voice sampling---Identification parade, non-conducting of---Accused persons were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for abducting minor child of four years of age and releasing him against receipt of ransom---Validity---Living in a technological era and well conversant with prevailing menace of false depositions, Courts can legitimately use data generated through modern devices for ascertaining truth of a fact through enabling provisions of Arts. 46-A & 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---From the data collected through modern devices brought on record in the evidence it was proved beyond any shred of doubt that voice samples available on CD and voice recorded on USB were the same, which aspect further strengthened the prosecution case---Both the appellants were apprehended in thick of incident when after receipt of ransom they were making an endeavour for decamping from the spot---Ransom was also recovered from the possession of both the accused persons and at the same time veil was lifted from the place of captivity of minor abductee---Identification of both the accused persons did not necessarily have to be conducted by minor abductee, who was just four years old and during trial was found not be competent enough in such regard---Holding of identification parade was not essential in an abduction incident---Prosecution successfully proved its case against accused persons for abduction of minor---High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons under S. 365-A, P.P.C.---High Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused person under S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as accused persons were tried by a Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court for a scheduled offence and conviction under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had become uncalled for---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD FARRUKH VS State art. 40---Disclosure made by accused---Evidentiary value---Discovery of any fact which is not known to anyone has legal significance and such fact is admissible under art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH vs State S — 2024 PLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD