Nawazish Akbar vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 758 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.

Nawazish Akbar VS State Ss. 365-a, 392, 506(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 129(g)---Kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness---Effect---adverse presumption---accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother---Significant deficiency in the prosecution's case was the consistent claim by its witnesses that the ransom amount was paid by the wife of the victim---Yet, the prosecution failed to produce wife of victim as a witness before the Trial Court to substantiate that claim or to establish the essential ingredients required under S.365-a, P.P.C---In case of non-production of witness by the prosecution during the trial gave rise to an adverse inference that had she been entered the witness-box he would have deposed against the prosecution---Said omission left no room for the Court but to draw an adverse inference under art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that in case wife of the victim appeared, she would not confirm the case of prosecution---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nawazish Akbar VS State Ss. 365-a, 392, 506(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Kidnapping for ransom, proof of---accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother---Prosecution had failed to bring on record any memorandum of captivity place or illegal confinement or its identification by any of the prosecution witness or even exact duration of such captivity when as per claim of prosecution, the victim was kept in confinement for six to seven months---Undoubtedly, both the essentials of S.365-a, P.P.C, i.e. demand or ransom and illegal confinement or captivity had no reference nor any justification for its non-disclosure was given by prosecution---For an offence under S.365-a, P.P.C, kidnapping for ransom, the essential ingredients were: i) the act of kidnapping or illegal confinement, and (ii) a demand or extortionate purpose for ransom, property, or compliance---absent a ransom demand or failure to prove, the offence under S.365-a, P.P.C could not be established---Prosecution had conspicuously failed to provide any cogent explanation or lawful justification for the omission of any reference to the demand or payment of ransom in the FIR or in the statements recorded during the investigation or before Court by the complainant---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nawazish Akbar VS State Ss. 365-a, 392, 506(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Delay of 18-months in lodging the FIR---Consequential---accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother---as per contents of the FIR, the victim was abducted on 19.06.2006 at about 1200 hours and the FIR was registered on 08.12.2007 after considerably delay of 18 months---Prosecution had failed to give any plausible explanation or valid justification about such delay and possibility of due deliberation and improvement could not be ruled out and such delayed FIR on the part of the complainant showed dishonesty and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nawazish Akbar VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a circumstance which creats reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nawazish Akbar VS State Ss. 365-a, 392, 506(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother---Business dispute was the motive behind the alleged occurrence---Victim deposed that on two different occasions, his wife had paid Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and jewelry having worth of Rs.90,00,000/- on account of ransom amount for the release of the victim---Testimony of brother-in-law of abductee introduced a materially divergent account regarding the alleged payment of ransom---Said witness deposed that he along with his sister went to one of the accused and paid cash amount Rs.3500000/- twice--Due to shortage of money sister of said witness also gave her jewelry to said accused in that regard---Said statement not only presented a different figure of the alleged ransom amount but also failed to corroborate the version of victim, thereby creating inconsistency in the prosecution's narrative---Moreover, brother-in-law of victim had offered no explanation as to why he did not inform the police or any law enforcement authority while proceeding to pay the purported ransom particularly when, according to his own account, the payment was made on two separate occasions---Said omission raised serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of his testimony---Testimony of brother of abductee lacked consistency and clarity regarding the alleged ransom amount and jewelry---During examination-in-chief, said witness did not categorically disclose the exact amount of ransom or mention any payment by selling jewelry thereof---However, in cross-examination, said witness introduced a substantially different version, stating that an amount ranging from Rs.70 to 80 lacs along with family jewelry was received by the accused from his bhabhi and her brother---Said witness further admitted that his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., recorded on 27.12.2007, did not contain any reference to the return of his brother or the payment of ransom---Witness added that the ransom demand was made to his bhabhi and her brother, but clarified that no ransom amount was paid in his presence---Such contradiction in his statement coupled with the absence of such details in his earlier recorded statement, casted doubt on the credibility and reliability of his deposition---Upon meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the depositions of victim, brother-in-law and brother of victim, it was evident that the quantum of ransom amount alleged to have been demanded and paid was inconsistent and at variance across the testimonies---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nawazish Akbar VS State Ss. 365-a, 392, 506(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting any person with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine, robbery, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence--- Delay of 14 years in recording the statements of material witnesses by police---accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother---In the present case, the statement of material prosecution witnesses recorded with a delay as much as of 14 years was fatal to the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Nawazish Akbar vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD