Kidnapping

Perusal of record revealed that regarding the occurrence which took place on 04.05.2010, FIR was got registered on 07.05.2010 i.e. with the delay of three days

Complainant during cross-examination had himself admitted that distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station was of 03-kilometers

Therefore, immediately after the incident the matter could conveniently be reported to the police by the complainant but no such effort was made in that regard

Even from the date of occurrence i.e. 04.05.2010 to 07.10.2010 neither complainant appeared before the Investigating Officer nor made any application for the registration of FIR

Moreover, it was not proved from record that Investigating Officer received any information about the occurrence from wireless or any source

Information regarding the incident was imparted to the police by the complainant after a considerable delay and that too after due consultation and deliberation

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

However, the evidence of extra judicial confession is always regarded as weak in nature and is generally fabricated in cases where requisite incriminating evidence is lacking

For this good reason, the evidence of extra judicial confession is not considered sufficient for awarding conviction

Court was aware of the fact that the whereabouts of minor were still unknown and he was still missing but since the Courts were creation of law, hence, had to decide the fate of cases in accordance with available evidence and not being driven through sentiments and emotions

No doubt conviction could be awarded to an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence but if the incriminating circumstances are knitted with each other, then failure of one link destroys the entire chain

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the only incriminating material put-forth by the prosecution to connect present appellant with the commission of offence was the statement of wife of co-accused incorporated by Investigating Officer in his case diary who deposed that her husband and appellant brought the minor in her house and handed over it to Mst. "K"

Significantly, wife of co-accused would have been the best witness for the prosecution to strengthen their case, however, she was not called as a witness to give evidence for the prosecution nor any statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., was got recorded by the Investigating Officer

Non-associating of said female in investigation process was intentional, apparently to suppress the actual facts of the incident and had she appeared before the police or Court, she would not have supported the case of prosecution, thus adverse inference could be drawn as per Art.129, illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record transpired that petitioner was neither directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR nor any specific role had been attributed to him

No incriminating evidence was available or collected against the present accused/petitioner during course of investigation nor witnesses had deposed against him

Sufficient material was not available to substantiate commission of crime against the petitioner/accused

Case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner/accused did not appeal to common sense

Moreover, it appeared that the accused/petitioner had falsely been implicated in the present case for commission of alleged offence which prima facie was not attracted against the present accused/petitioner

Record showed that the complainant party made an unsuccessful attempt to widen the net to involve, implicate or drag maximum family members of the nominated accused mentioned in the FIR with mala fide intentions

Offence under S.364-A, P.P.C, falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner

Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the accused/petitioner

In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception

Accused/petitioner was behind the bars for the last couple of months, waiting for commencement of the trial of the case

Case of the accused/petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, entitling him for concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed.

Accused persons (uncle and cousin of minor) were alleged to have forcibly abducted the minor aged about 08 years from his school on gun point

Accused persons were specifically nominated in the FIR on the complaint of grandfather of the minor

Police had also recorded statement of an eye-witness of the occurrence

Security guard of the school had stated in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., that on the date of occurrence, the minor was kidnapped by the accused in a black car forcibly from outside the school

Minor was in the custody of his father and the petition filed by mother of minor under S. 491, Cr.P.C., had been dismissed

Minor was in the custody of his mother but the practice of kidnapping and snatching the minor by relatives could not be allowed

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nikah between the accused persons being valid, proceedings against them, through the impugned FIR, were liable to be quashed

FIR registered against accused persons, stood quashed, in circumstances.

Partial quashment of the FIR was not permissible under the law.

Parties were close relatives and just to settle score upon family dispute, FIR in question was registered against lady member of family

Validity

High Court observed that trend to settle civil disputes by exercising pressure of criminal proceedings was on high, which was nothing but exploitation

High Court being custodian of Fundamental Rights of citizens was under obligation to provide shield against any invasion made on guaranteed Constitutional Rights and to protect subject from discrimination, exploitation colourable exercise of authority, bolted actions, mala fide and stinking proceedings

High Court declared the FIR to be illegal, unlawful, unprecedented, sham, result of colourable exercise of authority, abuse of process of law, tainted with mala fide, ulterior motives, a device of exploitation without jurisdiction and outcome of arbitrary exercise of authority and the same was quashed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Basic ingredient of the offence of kidnapping was the element of taking or enticing a minor out of the keeping of lawful guardian of minor without consent

Victim girls in the present case, were found to be not only under 16 years of age, but had also not attained puberty, while accused were grown up persons

Suck was indeed cruel debauchery

Rape in case having been committed within four walls of a secure building, it was futile to link for ocular evidence which should corroborate the allegations of the victim

Medical evidence duly supported by the report of Chemical Examiner, was sufficient corroboration of the factum of sexual intercourse which account had been provided by the two victims in the case

No evidence pi enmity existed between accused and the complainant party to impel the latter to involve accused person falsely and thereby risk the future of minor girls

Rape was committed with minor girls and accused had violated the trust and confidence reposed in them by the parents of the minor victims

Accused, did not deserve any concession or sympathy

Argument that the site plan of the places of occurrence was not made, did not demolish the direct evidence of rape

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence

Factum of zina-bil-jabr by accused persons with two minors having been proved by the prosecution, verdict of the Trial Court had been maintained, in circumstances.

Many reasons were not required, but even a single reason creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind was sufficient for acquittal

Extending the benefit of doubt to accused, conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, were set aside and accused was acquitted and set free; in circumstances.

Judicial Magistrate though had discussed the case of co-accused, but Trial Court while maintaining the bail granting order of the Magistrate, had dilated upon the cases of both accused persons

Third accused had been granted bail and reasons prevailed therefor had been discussed

Grounds prevailed for said accused were also available to the present accused because the same role had been attributed to them

Accused was an old person of 71/72 years and also disabled, on that ground too accused was entitled to bail

No direct evidence was available against accused to connect them with the offence

Principle for grant of bail and cancellation thereof were quite different from each other; in the application for cancellation of bail, complainant was required to show misuse of concession of bail by accused, tampering with evidence or subsequent criminal pressure on the complainant, but the complainant had not been able to establish any of those ingredients

Cancellation of bail was declined.

Accused was awarded life imprisonment and more than two years had passed after' passing judgment, but appeal of accused had not been decided

Ground of delay was not available to accused, because he had been convicted and sentenced by Anti-Terrorism Court

Provisions of amended S.426(1-A) of Cr. P. C. being not applicable to case of accused, petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation that accused ordered other co-accused to kidnap complainant and other witnesses, was belied by another statement of the complainant, wherein he had himself stated that accused on the date of incident, came with the Police and asked the Police to arrest the complainant

Such fact had clearly shown that there was no instigation of kidnapping, but it was the Police personnel who came in a Police Mobile and on the complaint of the accused, allegedly arrested the complainant and his two colleagues

In absence of any allegation that accused was carrying any weapon or she ordered kidnapping of complainant party, no case, as alleged by the complainant, was made out

Complainant had himself stated that Police arrested him and after two hours he was released

Facts had belied the allegation that accused intended to take over the control of school and college concerned

No likelihood of conviction of accused was there, Trial Court was not justified in rejecting application of accused filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.

Proceedings were quashed, in circumstances.

None of the prosecution witnesses deposed to have seen accused or anybody else while kidnapping or taking away victim child with intention to kidnap him

None of the witnesses deposed that the person who was repeatedly demanding ransom on mobile phone from father of victim child was one of the two accused persons

None of the recovery witnesses deposed about recovery of victim child from the possession of accused persons

Prosecution could not claim to have proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt nor recovery in question could be said to have been proved against accused in absence of evidence of any recovery witness

Defence plea of accused carried no legal force as such version if found to be unconvincing could not lead to conviction of accused and case against accused still required to be proved by prosecution

Both the accused could not be denied or deprived of benefit of doubt created in their favour which could not be proved by prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused were set aside and both accused were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Offence under S.12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, comprised of two parts; first part pertained to kidnapping or abduction, whereas second part pertained to commission of offence of unnatural lust which offence would not be covered when first part i.e. kidnapping or abduction was not satisfied

Use of force had not been alleged in taking the' victim for the offence of unnatural lust

No evidence was at all available as far as the alleged kidnapping or abduction was concerned; it was not safe to convict accused under S.12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in absence of direct and concrete evidence qua kidnapping and abduction

Conviction/ sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused, without satisfying as to the proof beyond any shadow of doubt about kidnapping or abduction, was not sustainable in law

Charge against accused under S.12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, having not been proved, conviction of sentence recorded by Trial Court thereunder, was set aside, in circumstances.

Proved case beyond any shadow of doubt whereby minor daughter of complainant aged 5/6 years was being kidnapped by putting her in a bag; and accused was apprehended by the complainant and prosecution witnesses with the help of muhalla people

Case under S.364-A, P.P.C., in circumstances, was made out against accused

Impugned judgment did not show that there was any misreading of evidence and that the same was misappreciated by the Trial Court

Had the accused been falsely involved in the case for either of the reasons, such suggestion could have been made to each and every witness coupled with the fact that accused could have said so specially while his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. was being recorded

Accused even declined to depose on oath

All that had shown that accused was the actual culprit and had committed such an offence

Grounds taken by accused in the appeal being without any substance, appeal was dismissed.

F.I.R. and so also in further statement of the complainant which was recorded after the alleged recovery of kidnapped boy and arrest of all accused involved, name of accused did not transpire

Alleged raid was conducted in presence of complainant and accused was not known to the complainant

Co-accused had confessed her guilt and tendered pardon on the condition that she had made full and true disclosure of whole incident and was declared approver, had also not implicated accused in the commission of such offence in her 164, Cr.P.C. statement

Position of said co-accused after becoming approver, was as of prosecution witness in terms of subsection (2) of S.337, Cr.P.C.

Was yet to be determined that F.I.R. was registered after the alleged raid and recovery of boy or after the recovery as no crime or F.I.R. number had been arrayed on the memo. of conducting of raid, recovery of boy and arrest of all the accused persons including accused

Case of accused with regard to his involvement, in circumstances, required further probe and inquiry

No doubt, bail in involving sentence for life imprisonment or death was not to be granted as a rule, but when there was a case of further inquiry with regard to the involvement of a person, the court could consider to grant him the concession of bail in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused being entitled to concession of bail, was released on in circumstances.

Plea raised by defendant was that earlier a suit between same parties on same cause of action was decided and the judgment had attained finality, therefore, suit was liable to be rejected

Validity

Doctrine of res­judicata was of universal application and based on principle that public policy demanded that one cause should not be tried for second time between same parties and there must be an end to litigation

Court was prohibited under S.11 C.P.C. from trying any suit or issue in which matter directly and substantially in former suit between same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed, litigated under same title in Court of competent jurisdiction to try such subsequent suit or suit in which such issue had been subsequently raised and had been heard and finally decided by such competent Court

As the suit was filed with same prayer on same subject-matter and against same parties and since judgment passed in earlier suit was never assailed, it attained finality and subsequent suit was hit by principle of res judicata

High Court rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C.

Application was allowed in circumstances.