NIAZ AHMED MIRANI vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 726 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.

NIAZ AHMED MIRANI VS State Ss. 365, 395, 452, 353, 220, 506-2, 504, 337-H(2), 337-a(i), 427, 342 & 34---abduction for ransom, dacoity, house trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, hurt by rash or negligent act, shajjah-i-khafifah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, wrongful confinement, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---admissions made by witness/detenu negating factum of his abduction---accused was charged for maltreating with the servant of complainant, forcibly taking away the detenu, abusing the complainant, extending threats of dire consequences and also firing just to spread fear, terror and insecurity in general public, when the complainant went to police station for releasing the detenu---Record showed that alleged detenu had deposed in clear terms that he was not abducted but was arrested and that he was not arrested by accused but by one Head Constable who was Incharge of the Police Post---Detenu in his cross-examination had admitted that his relatives used to meet with him at police post and he was confined in the quarter of S.H.O. and was sitting on a cot and not tied, but door was closed---Complainant of other FIR was not available at his house when he was apprehended---From such admissions of the detenu, it was clear that he had not said a single word about his abduction by the accused---Not understandable that in case he was abducted and was allegedly kept in wrongful confinement by the accused, then what was the point in allowing his relatives to meet him---Perusal of the contents of S. 365, P.P.C. showed that one of the important ingredients for constituting offence under this section was that alleged abductee or kidnapee was put in wrongful confinement secretly---Needless to emphasize that a place where any other person had access to the alleged abductee, could not be termed as secret place---In that view of the matter, the ingredients of S. 365 were lacking in the instant case because admittedly the relatives of alleged abductee used to meet him in said quarter---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---appeals against conviction was accordingly allowed.

NIAZ AHMED MIRANI vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 726 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR