IMTIAZ LATIF vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1169 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.

IMTIAZ LATIF VS State Ss. 365-a, 392 & 148---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---There was no eye-witness to the abduction---First Information Report was registered after the recovery of abductee who had previous acquaintance with the petitioners (accused persons)---Despite such fact abductee did not disclose the names of accused persons rather he nominated them at a belated stage through a supplementary statement, which spoke volumes about the deliberations and consultations on the part of complainant and victim---Major contradictions were found in the statements of the abductee---abductee claimed that injections were administered to him by the petitioners, however, no medical examination of the abductee was conducted to verify this fact---Moreover, no traces of said injections were recovered either from car of the abductee or from the possession of petitioners---abductee in his testimony had admitted that his mobile phone which was used by petitioners for demanding ransom was recovered by the police however no recovery memo was available on record---Complainant deposed that the call for ransom was received by him on his phone number, however, he did not provide any Call detail Record (CDR) to substantiate his statement---Complainant went alone to the agreed location for delivering the demanded ransom amount to the petitioners, hence, the incident of delivery of ransom money was also not witnessed---Furthermore, the complainant did not mention any particulars, colour, model, etc., of the car in which the petitioners came to receive the ransom amount or the car in which he went to handover the ransom money---all the recovery witnesses were either police officials or complainant and his relatives---all prosecution witnesses were interested and no independent witness was associated to recovery proceedings---Recoveries of motorcycle, pistols and part of the ransom money at the instance of petitioners could not be safely relied upon---So far as motorcycle was concerned, no such detail was disclosed in the FIR - Recoveries of weapon was also not of much help to the prosecution as no particulars of said weapons were mentioned in the FIR rather it was only stated that all accused were duly armed with pistols---Giving of Rs.1,000,000/- (ten lacs) to the petitioners' side was not proved by the complainant as no denomination of currency notes was disclosed either in the FIR or before the Trial Court---When the fact of giving Rs.1,000,000/- (ten lacs) by the complainant for the release of abductee was not proved, the alleged recoveries of part of the ransom amount at the instance of the petitioners were inconsequential and could not be relied for maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioners---Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners---Petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

IMTIAZ LATIF vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1169 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR