Kidnapping or ABDUCTION for extorting property, valuable security etc

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 96 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NIAZ ALI RAJPER
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 365-A, 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or ABDUCTION for extorting property, valuable security etc. attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that two accused persons, duly armed with TT pistols, forcibly taking away the son of complainant, soon as both accused had seen the police party, started firing upon police directly with intention to kill them---Police party, in retaliation, started firing and such encounter continued for about 05-minutes and during which police party recovered the boy and also arrested accused along with a pistol, whereas, other culprit succeeded to escape away---Ocular account of the case was furnished by witnesses including complainant and abductee---Present accused-appellant was nominated in the FIR with specific role that, he along with his unidentified accomplice forcibly abducted child aged about 10 years from Government, Primary School with intention to extort ransom amount---Said abductee was recovered by the police during the encounter and present accused-appellant was also apprehended at the spot with a pistol, used in the commission of offence---Evidence of complainant and eye-witnesses was supported by official witness, who had clearly deposed to have seen and identified the present accused-appellant at the spot while he along with his accomplice was forcibly taking away the abductee---Accused was apprehended at the spot along with unlicensed pistol, which was also supported by the evidence of Investigating Officer---All the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length---Witnesses remained consistent on material points---Abductee had narrated complete story, manner of his ABDUCTION , demand of ransom of Rs.500,000/- and recovery by police which was apparently natural and confidence inspiring---Said abductee had identified accused-appellant, who remained involved in the commission of the offence---Accused-appellant had not claimed any direct or indirect enmity against the abductee for his false involvement in such serious charge nor any suggestion was made in that regard---Abductee had assigned to accused-appellant, the role of his ABDUCTION , detention and demand of Rs.500,000---Ingredients of the offence of kidnapping for ransom, in circumstances, were fully satisfied and proved---Complainant, abductee, and eye-witnesses had sufficiently explained every event of the occurrence in a clear-cut manner including date, time and place of occurrence---Accused-appellant had failed to point out any ill-will or animosity with the complainant party and /or police for his false implication in the case---Even otherwise, the accused-appellant had declined to examine any person in his defence, therefore, mere assertion of accused-appellant that he had falsely been implicated at the behest of some other person without corroboration of any independent piece of evidence, had no force---Prosecution had successfully proved the case against the accused, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJN 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFEEZ alias AZEEM
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 365-A, 324, 342, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13(d)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Kidnapping or ABDUCTION for extorting property, valuable security etc., attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, wrongful confinement, making preparation to commit dacoity, assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity, possessing illicit weapons, act of terrorism---Identification Parade---Scope---In the present case, the accused-appellant was produced before Judicial Magistrate for identification parade---Accused-appellant was mixed with nine dummies---Complainant and his eye-witnesses identified the accused with specific role---Identification parade had corroborated the ocular account, in circumstances.