Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),

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)---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---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case as per complainant was that the accused persons forcibly took his nephew and got him sat on the motorcycle and then went away while asking him to arrange the ransom amount---After 02 days, accused persons contacted the complainant party through mobile phone and demanded Rs. 80 lac for the release of abductee---Complainant requested the accused for reducing ransom amount, but they told that they would not receive the ransom amount less than Rs. 30 lac---Complainant, being a poor person failed to arrange the ransom amount and lodged the FIR---Ocular testimony was furnished by the prosecution in shape of evidence of complainant and two eye-witnesses---Evidence of said witnesses was corroborated by Police Officials, who during encounter arrested the accused-appellant on 10-03-2013---Eye-witnesses had supported the version of the complainant and during identification parade, they had identified the present accused-appellant before Magistrate---All the witnesses had identified the accused-appellant in court at the time of recording of their evidence---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but their evidence could not be shattered with regard to the case of appellant/accused and nothing could be brought on record in his favour---Furthermore, the accused-appellant had failed to show any enmity/motive with the private or official witnesses for his false implication in the case---Circumstances established that the ocular evidence in respect of appellant/accused was corroborated by circumstantial evidence---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt---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)---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---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Record showed that there was delay in lodging the FIR, but said delay had been explained by the complainant that after the incident he approached the accused persons for recovery of abductee, who kept him on false hopes---Even otherwise, in case of like nature the complainant party used to avoid to register the FIR immediately and try to make safe recovery of person kidnapped by the accused---Furthermore, accused-appellant had not alleged any enmity with the complainant party or with the police, hence delay in lodging FIR was of no consequence

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)---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---Discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Minor discrepancies existed in statement of all the witnesses, which were not enough to demolish the case of prosecution---Such discrepancies always occurred on account of lapse of time which could be ignored---Variations in the statements of witnesses, which were neither material nor serious enough to affect the case of the prosecution adversely, were to be ignored by the court---Statements of the witnesses had to be read as a whole and the court should not pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement and ignoring its proper reference---Contradictions must be material and substantial so as to adversely affect the case of prosecution.