Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2370 2015 SLD 2370 2015 PCRLJ 953
Sindh High Court
Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. D-241 of 2009, decided on6th March, 2014. DATE of hearing: 10th February, 2014.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Habib Ahmed for Appellants. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, Deputy Prosecutor-General Sindh for the State. Syed Ahmad Ali Shah for the Complainant

SAJAN and anothervsThe STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Even if major portion of evidence was found to be deficient, in case residue was sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused, his conviction could be maintained---Court was supposed to separate grain from chaff; where chaff could be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict accused notwithstanding the fact that the evidence had been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365, 365-A & 342---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, kidnapping for ransom, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Case being of kidnapping for ransom, evidence of two abductees, the persons who paid ransom, could not be rejected; for the reasons that prosecution evidence was natural, coherent and rang true---Defence evidence appeared to be unbelievable and afterthought---Defence witness did not belong to the village from where abductees were kidnapped---Defence plea had not been put up to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination---Defence theory was not acceptable at all in circumstances---In order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom, proof thereof was not sine qua non, and said offence also would stand constituted, if there was an abduction and the purpose of the abduction was extortion of ransom, or ransom was demanded for the release of the abductee---Demand, in the present case, was made by the culprits for payment of ransom for release of the abductees, which was actually paid---Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence---Both the abductees had stated that after abduction , accused chained them and they were recovered as a result of a Police encounter---Both abductees remained in captivity of accused for more than 40 days---Accused was caught red handed in the Police encounter and both abductees were recovered from his possession---All pieces of evidence brought on record by the prosecution connected accused in commission of offence---Offence had been committed by accused persons in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register