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---act of terrorism, applicability of---accused-petitioner was charged for abduction of minor son of complainant for ransom---On scrutiny of the entire evidence of prosecution, court did not find any concrete evidence to bring the action of the petitioners within the meaning of terrorism as defined in section 6 of the act of 1997---Cases of the offences specified in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the anti Terrorism act, 1997, were cases of those heinous offences which did not per se constitute the offence of terrorism but such cases were to be tried by an anti-Terrorism Court because of their inclusion in the Third Schedule---In such cases of heinous offences mentioned in Entry No. 4 of the said Schedule an anti-Terrorism Court could pass a punishment for the said offence but not for committing the offence of terrorism---Offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365-a, P.P.C., was included in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule and kidnapping for ransom was also one of the actions specified in section 7(e) of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997---abduction or kidnapping for ransom was a heinous offence but the scheme of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997, showed that an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365-a, P.P.C., was merely triable by an anti-Terrorism Court but if kidnapping for ransom was committed with the design or purpose mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of Section 6 of the antiTerrorism act, 1997, then such offence amounted to terrorism attracting Section 7(e) of said act---Conviction and sentences of the petitioner under Section 7(e) of the act of 1997 recorded by the two Courts below were set-aside, whereas, conviction and sentences under Section 365-a, P.P.C., recorded by the two Courts below were upheld---Petition was converted into appeal and 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