Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1399 2011 SLD 1399 2011 PLD 1135
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos.372 to 379 of 2008, decided on 28th September, 2011. (On appeal from the judgment dated 27-1-2007 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Special Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos.9, 10, 12, 13 and 37 of 2005 and Confirmation Case No.3
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

JUNAID REHMAN and others

VS

THE STATE and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.2(n)---Kidnapping for extortion and kidnapping for ransom---Scope---In order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom actual payment of ransom and proof thereof are sine qua non and the offence stands constituted if there is an abduction and purpose of abduction is extortion of ransom or ransom is demanded for release of abductee. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 2(n) & 7(e)---Kidnapping for extortion or ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---Ransom---Proof---Conviction and sentence of death awarded to accused persons by Trial Court for kidnapping for ransom was altered by High Court into imprisonment for life---Validity---Some telephonic calls had actually been made and received regarding demand of ransom for release of abductee---Bank Manager had proved that at the relevant time a cheque issued by abductee's father for withdrawal of money equal to ransom had been encashed from the relevant bank and such fact had further established prosecution's case regarding demand of ransom by accused for release of abductee---Overwhelming evidence produced by prosecution convinced the courts below and the same had also left no doubt that the abduction was done for the purpose of extorting ransom and that ransom was demanded for his release----Not only the charge of abduction was established against accused persons but it had also been conclusively proved that such abduction was carried out for ransom---No background was available of any enmity or ill-will between accused and abductee and they were not even known to each other previously---Only plausible reason for abduction was to demand ransom for release of abductee---Abductee and his father were the most relevant persons to provide evidence in respect of abduction and demand of ransom and both of them made consistent statements in that respect before Trial Court---Abductee and his father had no reason to falsely implicate accused persons in a case of such nature---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Supreme Court declined to…
🔒
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