| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5725 2024 SLD 5725 2024 PLD 1119 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
ail Petition No.431 of 2016, Criminal Petitions Nos. 845 of 2016 and 830 of 2016, decided on 15th May, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 23.05.2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeals Nos.240, 266, 323, Criminal Revision No.175, Criminal Appeal No.281 and Capital Sentence Reference No.01T of 2012).
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
ail Petition No.431 of 2016, Criminal Petitions Nos. 845 of 2016 and 830 of 2016, decided on 15th May, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 23.05.2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeals Nos.240, 266, 323, Criminal Revision No.175, Criminal Appeal No.281 and Capital Sentence Reference No.01T of 2012).
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
ASMAT ULLAH KHAN and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365-A & 149
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(e)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section: 431
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 184, 185
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365-A & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Doubtful occurrence--Petitioners (convicts) were known to the complainant---In this scenario, the alleged kidnapping of the complainant's brother and his business partner, along with the demand for ransom, did not seem reasonable when the complainant did not allege any motive or enmity behind the incident---It was also surprising that one of the petitioners contacted the complainant three times from the same number and provided a venue for the payment of the ransom amount a day in advance--Moreover, one of the alleged eye-witnesses was extraordinarily daring and courageous, willingly accompanying the complainant to hand over the ransom amount to the petitioner---On the other hand, the petitioners were so courteous that they did not object to whoever might accompany the complainant to hand over the ransom amount---Similarly, the police succeeded in arresting the petitioner without any violence on their part, even though they (the petitioners) were equipped with deadly firearms, according to the police---Primarily, the story of the prosecution appeared to be a dramatic one---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "A" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365-A & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ransom currency notes not marked---Consequential---Stance of both the complainant and the witness was that they first went to a police station and informed the police that they were going to meet one of the petitioners (convict) to hand over the ransom amount and the police instructed them to proceed, and they would follow---If, for the sake…
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