SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 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.

SHER AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inquiry conducted before the registration of FIR---Consequential---accused-appellant were charged for committing murder of the minor son of complainant after kidnapping him for extorting money---In this case, the initial statement filed by the complainant was only to the extent of informing the officer in charge of a police station that despite a search he could not find his son---Complainant had not expressed any apprehension regarding the commission of a cognizable offence---Thus, the information did not meet the requirements set out in Section 154, Cr.P.C.---In the circumstances, there was no need to seek an order and measures could have been taken for searching the missing child---Nonetheless, the report seemed to have been taken seriously by seeking permission for conducting an 'inquiry' under Section 153(3),Cr.P.C. and it was granted by the concerned Magistrate without appreciating the fact that no power or authority was vested to order an inquiry---Witnesses in their depositions had stated that the Magistrate had ordered an 'inquiry' and that it was marked to SI/witness---In his examination-in-chief Inquiry Officer acknowledged that during the course of inquiry, he interrogated various suspects, but they were released being not involved in the commission of the offence---Station House Officer/witness had also deposed that many persons were interrogated during the inquiry and he claimed to have taken over the inquiry only for a day i.e. on 05.07.2012 and had further stated that the appellant was arrested on the same day---Moreover, it was later in the day that, according to his testimony, the appellant had led him to the recovery of the dead body from the well---No FIR or, in other words, entry was made as required under Section 154,Cr.P.C.,before the recovery of the body---Entire proceedings before the registration of the case under Section 154,Cr.P.C.,were conducted under the garb of an inquiry not even contemplated under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.---It was established from the evidence that during the period from 23.04.2012 till 05.07.2012 numerous persons were arrested and interrogated as suspects---They were released without complying with the requirements prescribed under S. 156, Cr.P.C., in the case of suspects who are arrested and released after the registration of a case---It was, therefore, obvious that the officer in charge of the police station had reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence but did not register a case nor complied with the mandatory procedure set out under section 157---By adopting this course, the officer in charge of the police station had steered clear from the external supervisory check otherwise contemplated under the scheme of the Cr.P.C.---Officer in charge of the police station or any other officer associated with the purported 'inquiry' had illegally arrested suspects and then released them---Interrogation without the registration of a case in the circumstances was also illegal---abuse of the coercive powers in this case, therefore, could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed in its obligation to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR