| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 443 2015 SLD 443 2015 PCRLJ 119 |
Sindh High Court
Special Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeals Nos. 7 and 9 of 2008, decided on 11th October, 2013. DATE of hearing: 26th September, 2013
GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Sheraz Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellants. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, D.P.G. for the State
Special Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeals Nos. 7 and 9 of 2008, decided on 11th October, 2013. DATE of hearing: 26th September, 2013
GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Sheraz Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellants. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, D.P.G. for the State
MUHAMMAD SHAMIM and another
VS
The STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 365-A,34
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(e)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence of the complainant and his brother was trustworthy and reliable for the reasons that they had no motive to falsely implicate accused person in a heinous crime---Payment of ransom was also established by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence---Both accused persons were identified by complainant and his brother in the identification parade---No inherent defect in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or in the identification parade had been pointed out---Despite lengthy cross-examination, not a single major contradiction had come on record---Delay in lodging of F.I.R. had been fully explained---Approach of the court in the matter like the present case, should always be dynamic and, if the court was satisfied that offence had been committed in the manner in which it had been alleged by the prosecution and the same was proved, the technicalities should be overlooked without causing miscarriage of justice---Plea of accused persons that Police demanded bribe from them and on their refusal they had been challaned in the present case, appeared to be without substance and afterthought; and same had also not been substantiated by producing the defence---Child witness/victim having not understood the questions of the Trial Court, no benefit could be extended to accused persons on the basis of evidence of child witness---Prosecution had proved its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt, and Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence according to the settled principles of law---Finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court against accused persons, required no interference in circumstances. JUDGMENT NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Appellants Masood Alam and Muhammad Shamim were tried by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Karachi in Special Case No.29 of 2006 under section 7(e), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A/34, P.P.C. On the conclusion of trial, appellants were found guilty vide…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492