Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1487 2021 SLD 1487 2021 YLR 836
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 85 and 86 of 2015, decided on 7th April, 2020, Date of hearing: 30th March, 2020.
MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Hasan Feroz and Shah Imroze Khan for Appellant. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General for
Respondent.

SARFRAZ ALIAS BHOORA

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 365-A,353,324,186,34

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 353, 324, 186 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for kidnapping of the nephews of the complainant for ransom---Complainant immediately informed the police for kidnapping of his nephews---Police on spy information that abductees had been kept at a particular place by the accused, reached there but accused started firing at police party to kill them, police made firing in retaliation, accused made their escape good---Record showed that the FIR was registered with promptitude---Accused was not named in the FIR but others were so named---Said fact showed that name of accused only came up during the police inquiry---Abductees were eye-witnesses of the occurrence---One of the abductees did not give evidence, whereas the other abductee stated that the accused present in the court was not the same person whom he identified at the police station who had kidnapped him---Said witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution---Complainant was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution as in his evidence he had stated that he had forgiven the accused---Rope found at the scene of the offense did not connect the accused to the kidnapping and no witness actually witnessed the kidnapping of the abductees---No ransom was paid and although the CDR indicated that the complainant had received a call but the number/SIM that call was made from had no connection with the accused---No recording of any ransom demand was available---Although an encounter did take place between the police and the culprits at the time when the abductees were rescued by the police but there was no evidence that the accused was involved in that encounter---Circumstances established that there was a doubt that the accused was involved in either the kidnapping for ransom…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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