MEHBOOB HASSAN vs AKHTAR ISLAM S — 2024 SCMR 757 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.

MEHBOOB HASSAN VS AKHTAR ISLAM S. 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 201 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Petition against acquittal of accused---Re-appraisal of evidence---Test identification parade---Lapses---Combined and joint identification parade---Belatedly conducted identification parade---Though the Magistrate managed to make five rows consisting of under-trial prisoners and each of the respondents (accused persons), but the fact remained that they all were present in the same premises under one roof---Manner in which the Magistrate managed to conduct the identification parade lead to the conclusion that it was a combined and joint identification parade, which is a nullity in the eyes of law---Persons who abducted the abductee and those who received the ransom amount were not known to the witnesses prior to the identification parade, therefore, it was necessary for the witnesses to have given some features of each of the respondents, with their specific role, during the investigation, before the identification parade, enabling the Magistrate to manage the person of identical features for the purpose of including them in identification parade as dummies---Admittedly the witnesses did not disclose any such fact in respect of the respondents---Moreover, in order to maintain secrecy, it was the responsibility of the concerned police to ensure that the accused were not seen by the witnesses while in police station lock-up or in police custody---Police was required to have taken every precaution to conceal the identity of the detainees before conducting the identification parade---All these precautions should not only be taken, but must have been proved to have been taken---There was nothing on the record to prove that any step was taken by the police in this behalf---Before conducting the identification parade, the respondents had raised an objection before the Magistrate that the witnesses saw them in the lockup and their photographs were published in the newspapers in connection with some other case---Prosecution did not deny this objection---Magistrate was required to record the objection and to decide its fate, but he ignored the objection and instead, continued to complete the process of identification parade---Identification was conducted after a lapse of more than two years of the occurrence, therefore, it was hard to believe that the witnesses could still have momentary glimpse of the respondents---Respondents were picked up in the identification parade, but the role attributed to them was not stated by the witnesses---Identification parade in the circumstances was not in line with Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, hence, was of no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon---High Court after proper appraisal of the record and scanning the evidence in its true perspective, had reached a correct conclusion by acquitting the respondents of the charge---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 757 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MEHBOOB HASSAN VS AKHTAR ISLAM arts. 10-a & 37(d)---Inordinate and unreasonable delay in conclusion of criminal trials and appeals/petitions---Observations, recommendations and directions issued by the Supreme Court to address the issue of such delay stated. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 757 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MEHBOOB HASSAN VS AKHTAR ISLAM S. 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 201 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Petition against acquittal of accused---Re-appraisal of evidence---Alleged ransom amount recovered from house of the accused persons---Not consequential---Prosecution relied upon the amount recovered after more than two years of the occurrence from the respective houses of the respondents (accused persons)---It was unbelievable that someone would retain the crime amount for such a long time---Even otherwise, the recovered currency notes admittedly did not contain any identification mark nor had the prosecution given any description or denomination thereof at the time they were allegedly delivered by the complainant to the respondents---It is a common practice that most people retain some cash amount in their houses, therefore, it is not safe to consider the recovered amount in the present case to be a part of the ransom amount---Prosecution had failed to prove that the recovered amount was actually a portion of the ransom amount, allegedly paid by the complainant to the alleged abductors, hence, such recovery could not be believed or relied upon for the purpose of convicting the respondents---High Court after proper appraisal of the record and scanning the evidence in its true perspective, had reached a correct conclusion by acquitting the respondents of the charge---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused with the direction that the amount recovered from the respondents should be returned to them.

MEHBOOB HASSAN vs AKHTAR ISLAM S — 2024 SCMR 757 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR