| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2568 2021 SLD 2568 2021 PCRLJ 1502 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020 and CriminalRevision Application No. 18 of 2021, decided on 26th May,2021, Date of hearing: 18th May, 2021.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, JUSTICE
Raj Ali Wahid Kanwar for Appellant (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020).Muhammad Hanif Samma for the Complainant (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020).Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General and Ms. Rahat Ahsan, Additio
Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020 and CriminalRevision Application No. 18 of 2021, decided on 26th May,2021, Date of hearing: 18th May, 2021.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, JUSTICE
Raj Ali Wahid Kanwar for Appellant (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020).Muhammad Hanif Samma for the Complainant (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 198 of 2020).Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General and Ms. Rahat Ahsan, Additio
MUHAMMAD SOHAIL AND OTHErsVSTHE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365-A,506-B,34
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 506-B 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about one month in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---Record showed that the complainant lodged his FIR around one month after the date of the incident---Delay in registering the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case as the delay had been explained by the fact that in kidnapping of children usually there was some delay in registering the FIR as the priority was the recovery of the child by at first searching for him---Complainant reported the matter to the concerned police station, which refused to register the FIR and the complainant got his FIR lodged on the orders of the court--- Such a delay was not fatal to the prosecution case. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 506-B 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---Complainant in the FIR stated that the persons who kidnapped his son had muffled faces, which contradicted the evidence of his other son/witness who, according to his evidence seen the kidnappers in un-muffled faces---Circumstances established that the case of the prosecution was riddled with doubt to which the accused was entitled to be benefited---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 506-B 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unexplained delay in nominating the accused persons---Effect---Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---None of the accused on the day of the incident was named in the report to the…
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