MUHAMMAD AMEER vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 289 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.

MUHAMMAD AMEER VS State Ss. 365-a, 170, 171 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., personating a public servant, wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Star witness/abductee not supporting the case---Consequential---accused was charged that he by showing himself to be FIa personnel took the son of complainant in an inquiry, later on demanded Bhatta/ransom of Rs. 30 lacs from complainant or else his son would be killed--- In the present case, the star witness of the case was the abductee---as per his evidence accused put a gun on him and took him towards the car and was blindfolded and after a 15/20 minute drive they stopped the car and shifted him to the house which was on the first floor---Star witness had not deposed a single word that when the door was knocked his sister responded to the same and when he was being kidnapped his sister shouted on which other witnesses came there---abductee had also not supported eye-witness that the accused persons at the time of abduction showed some screenshots of Whatsapp etc.---abductee also in his evidence claimed that he was tortured by the accused persons but on his release he was not examined by the doctor nor was referred to any doctor and none of the other witnesses disclosed that he was tortured---Said witness had also deposed that when he was released, on the second day police came to his house and showed him the picture of the accused at which he identified the accused---Star witness during cross-examination admitted that his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was silent regarding the description of the accused which also suggested that he had not identified any accused after his release on seeing the photographs etc.---Said star witness had not identified the accused at the time of recording evidence and from his examination-in-chief it did not transpire as to whether he had identified the accused present in the court to be the same---Said witness also changed his stance from his earlier stance taken in the statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and made dishonest improvements which rendered his evidence unreliable---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AMEER vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 289 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR