MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1552 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.

MUHAMMAD YAMIN VS State S. 365-a---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---abduction for ransom, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---accused-petitioner was charged for abduction of minor son of complainant for ransom---Record divulged that complainant, father of the minor abductee, and an eye-witness had furnished ocular account of the incident of abduction of abductee, whereas, the minor abductee had furnished the ocular account of the entire episode of his abduction from the spot till his release by the abductors after receiving ransom amount of rupees twenty two lacs from his father---according to testimony of witnesses, on 01.10.2013 the abductee along with his brother aged 11 years was returning home after offering Isha prayer and at 08.20 p.m. when they reached at the corner of a Girls High School, two abductors riding on a motorcycle arrived there and forcibly abducted the minor abductee---Incident was reported on the same day to police by the complainant---On 12.10.2013, the complainant received a phone call on his cell phone and the abductors demanded ransom of rupees fifty lacs for the release of the abductee, however, after negotiation rupees twenty two lacs were agreed to be paid to the abductors---On 13.10.2013 at about 06.00 a.m, the complainant along with witnesses paid the said ransom amount to four abductors including the petitioner on a road in lieu whereof the minor abductee was released and handed over to the complainant---as per testimony of the complainant, he obtained phone data of the mobile number of abductors w.e.f. 14.09.2013 to 12.10.2013 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who took the same through recovery memo---On 24.12.2013, the present petitioner was identified by the complainant and witness during identification parade conducted at District Jail by Judicial Magistrate---Minor abductee after answering rational answers to the questions of the trial Court was examined and he reiterated the same story of his abduction as set forth by his father/complainant---according to the statement of abductee, after his abduction he was confined in a room and after settling of the ransom amount by the petitioner with his father/complainant he was blindfolded and brought near a park close to his house where he was released---Said material witnesses had been cross-examined at length but nothing beneficial to defence could be extracted from their mouth---CDR data of the mobile number through which the complainant had received call for arranging ransom amount was found to be that of petitioner---Petitioner had been duly identified by the complainant and witness to be one of the abductors who abducted the minor abductee on motorcycle from the spot---Circumstances established that prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the petitioner to the extent of section 365-a, P.P.C, whereas the offence under section 7 of anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was not proved thus conviction and sentence under said section was set-aside---appeal was partly allowed.

MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1552 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR