| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4874 = 2026 SLD 4874 = 2026 MLD 1157 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 98 and 101 of 2024, decided on 14th November, 2025.
Presented By: Omar Sial and Miran Muhammad Shah, JJ
Habib Ahmed and Muhammad Hanif Kashmiri for Appellants (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 98 of 2024). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 98 of 2024). Kashif Ali and Mudasar Iqbal for Appellant (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 101 of 2024). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 101 of 2024).
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 98 and 101 of 2024, decided on 14th November, 2025.
Presented By: Omar Sial and Miran Muhammad Shah, JJ
Habib Ahmed and Muhammad Hanif Kashmiri for Appellants (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 98 of 2024). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 98 of 2024). Kashif Ali and Mudasar Iqbal for Appellant (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 101 of 2024). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 101 of 2024).
AMJAD JAWAD alias Choudhary Amjad and 2 others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365-A, 34
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 22
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Abduction for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence--- Delay in conducting test identification parade---Joint identification parade---Accused were charged for abduction of complainant and torturing him---Admittedly, there was a delay of 30 days in the lodgment of the FIR, for which no plausible explanation had been given---Furthermore, there was further delay of 14 days more in conducting the identification parade---Hence, a total delay of 44 days occurred in holding the identification parade---In fact, the sole appellant was not even held to an identification parade---Even otherwise, the identification parade conducted did not inspire confidence and was not in line with Art.22 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984, as joint identification parade of the accused persons was held, which was against the law and had no evidentiary value---Since the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and no description (huliya) of any of the accused was mentioned either at the time of lodging the FIR or later during the recording of statements under S.161 Cr.P.C, hence, it was mandatory that after the arrest of the accused persons, who had not been named or identified in the FIR, their identification parade be conducted at the earliest and before any interaction could take place between the complainant and accused---However, none of those legal requirements were upheld and there were distinctive discrepancies in the manner in which the identification parade was conducted---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Abduction for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Joint test identification parade---Accused were charged for abduction of complainant and torturing him---Accused were placed together in a joint identification parade, which was not permissible under the law and, therefore, created a serious doubt in the prosecution's…