| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 784 2021 SLD 784 2021 YLR 288 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 71, 80, 81 of 2019 and Constitutional Petition No. D-2098 of 2020, decision Dated: 17th June, 2020, Dates of hearing: 2nd, 8th, 10th, 11th and 17th June, 2012.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JUSTICE, ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ashraf Kazi and Muhammad Khalid Khan for appellants (in Spl. Crl. A.T.A. No.71/2019 and for Petitioner (in C.P.D. 2098/2020). M.M. Aqil Awan and Danish Rasheed for Appellant (in Spl. Crl. A.T.As. Nos. 80 and 81 of 2019). Muhammad Saleem Mangrio
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 71, 80, 81 of 2019 and Constitutional Petition No. D-2098 of 2020, decision Dated: 17th June, 2020, Dates of hearing: 2nd, 8th, 10th, 11th and 17th June, 2012.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JUSTICE, ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ashraf Kazi and Muhammad Khalid Khan for appellants (in Spl. Crl. A.T.A. No.71/2019 and for Petitioner (in C.P.D. 2098/2020). M.M. Aqil Awan and Danish Rasheed for Appellant (in Spl. Crl. A.T.As. Nos. 80 and 81 of 2019). Muhammad Saleem Mangrio
WALI MUHAMMD RAHIMOON AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365-A,383,504,506-B,337-A(i),34
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(1)A
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 383, 504, 506-B, 337-A(i) 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping for ransom, extortion, intentional insult with intent to invoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, shajjah-i-khafifah, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused abducted the complainant for ransom, beat him, stripped him, indulged in indecent acts with him, and made recording in their mobile phones and freed him after getting an assurance regarding money---Complainant had stated that he was kidnapped from his car when it stopped at a traffic signal in presence of his driver, who witnessed the incident---Presence of said driver at the spot seemed to be by chance, which could be gathered from his own evidence---Said driver had disclosed that he was driver of the complainant at his village and came to perform duty at city only when his driver at city was on leave---Neither the complainant tried to produce said driver before the police to endorse the story nor he made any such attempt, which was baffling and simply eluded common sense---Fact of complainant availing services of two drivers one at his village and the other at city with his official vehicle at the relevant time had come on record---Complainant did not mention name of specific driver in FIR, therefore, had yielded to vagueness in that connection and had decreased the odds of presence of alleged driver at the spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. PLD 2020 SC 61; 2020 SCMR 116; 2008 SCMR 1572; 2019 SCMR 1027; 1993 SCMR 550; 1998 SCMR 570; 1996 SCMR 1553; 2001 SCMR 424; PLD 1995 Lah. 229; 1993 SCMR 585; 1992 SCMR 2088; 1995 SCMR 412; 2010 SCMR 1706; 2011 SCMR 537; 2017 SCMR 1189; PLD 1997 SC 408; 2000 SCMR 683; 1983 SCMR 958; 1983 SCMR 1; 1987 SCMR 1177; 2011 SCMR 1127; 2015 PCr.LJ 391; 2012 SCMR 721; PLD 2011 SC 1135; 2020 PCr.LJ 96; 2006 SCMR 672; 1997 PCr.LJ 1659; PLD…
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