| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 784 2020 SLD 784 2020 PCRLJ 584 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 367-J of 2013, hearing Date : 04-04-2019
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, JUSTICE ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE
Ch. Ameen Rehmat and Kamran Javed Malik for Appellants. Javed Bashir for the Complainant. Rana Sultan Mehmood Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 367-J of 2013, hearing Date : 04-04-2019
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, JUSTICE ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE
Ch. Ameen Rehmat and Kamran Javed Malik for Appellants. Javed Bashir for the Complainant. Rana Sultan Mehmood Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
HAFIZ SHAHBAZ AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365-A
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(e)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 365-A--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---Record showed that evidence of the complainant was completely silent as to who had demanded the payment and to whom he had paid the same---Complainant, during trial proceedings, did not pinpoint and raise finger towards any specific person, who had made call or received the amount---Complainant could easily get assistance of police before making payment of ransom but he kept the police in dark---Demand and payment of ransom had not been established---Mere establishing contact of the abductee at the cell phone of the complainant was not sufficient to prove the demand of ransom---Second call was made from another cell phone, however, after the recovery of cell phones from the appellants, the Investigating Officer did not collect any data to establish contact amongst complainant and accused/appellants---Testimony of the complainant, in circumstances, could not be used against the appellants---Investigating officer recovered abductee from the house of co-accused and let him go to his house without recording his statement, on the next day he recorded his statement and that of his father for the reasons best known to him---Said fact showed the possibility that abductee was tutored by some legal expert---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellants through confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 365-A--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Chance witness---Scope---Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom---Prosecution witness had stated before 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