SALAMAT ALI vs State — 2026 SCMR 1056 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.

SALAMAT ALI VS State. S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(e)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse presumption---Terror in general public---Absence of proof---Defective and delayed identification parade---Non-association of abductee in identification parade---Doubtful recovery of alleged ransom amount---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for kidnapping for ransom and was sentenced to death, but the High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life---Validity---Employee of the complainant party, if he was indeed an eye-witness to the incident, could have been a vital witness---Prosecution''s decision to forego such important witness, especially when his testimony could have corroborated the complainant''s account, further weakened the case---Unexplained non-production of the employee of the complainant party as a witness attracted adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to the effect that had he been produced by the prosecution at trial, he would not have supported the prosecution case---Such omission added another layer of doubt to the credibility of the prosecution case---For conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, there was no evidence on record indicating that the alleged act was designed to create fear, insecurity or terror among the general public, or that it was committed with intent to disturb public order as defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Although kidnapping for ransom is included in the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the purpose of expedited trial, it does not automatically qualify as terrorism---In absence of clear design or intent to terrorise, as required by Section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the offence did not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Prosecution case fell squarely within the ambit of ordinary penal law under Section 365-A, P.P.C., rather than under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court, by merely converting death sentence to imprisonment for life without addressing the fundamental absence of evidence, had perpetuated a grave miscarriage of justice---Both Courts below had completely perverted the course of justice---Cumulative effect of nomination of accused solely on the basis of disclosure of co-accused during interrogation, defective and delayed identification parade, non-association of abductee in identification parade, delay in recording abductee''s statement, absence of proof regarding banking transaction and telephonic communication, and doubtful recovery of alleged ransom amount from accused, rendered the prosecution story unsafe for sustaining conviction---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as prosecution failed to prove its case against accused---Consequently, accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed.

SALAMAT ALI vs State — 2026 SCMR 1056 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR