Doubtful occurrence

2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 365-A & 149Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)Kidnapping or abduction for ransomRe-appraisal of evidenceDoubtful occurrencePetitioners (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.

2013 PCrLJ 1782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376 & 511Rape, attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or for a shorter termBail, grant ofFurther inquiryDoubtful occurrencePenetration not allegedEffect

Accused and co-accused allegedly entered house of complainant while armed with weapons and tried to commit zina-bil-jabr with her

Reading of the F.I.R. showed that rape was not committed with the complainant, rather accused allegedly tried to commit zina with her, therefore, provisions of S.376, P.P.C. were not attracted to the present case

Co-accused had been granted bail on the basis that complainant submitted an affidavit in court to the effect that co-accused was innocent

Complainant also recorded her statement before court below to the effect that co-accused was not present at the time of occurrence

Factually if co-accused was not present at the time of occurrence, then entire story narrated by complainant seemed to be somewhat doubtful

According to the F.I.R., accused had been seducing the complainant for zina for a long period of time, but inaction on part of complainant to bring the same to the notice of police or anybody else spoke volumes on her part

Although accused was alleged to have been involved in other cases but complainant could not establish that he was ever convicted in any case registered against him

Accused had made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt

Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1853 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34Haraabah, common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryDelay in lodging F.I.R.F.I.R. lodged after consultationDoubtful occurrenceEffectAccused persons allegedly robbed a tractor from the complainant party

Said tractor was subsequently recovered by the police after an encounter with the accused persons and a separate F.I.R. was registered against them for such recovery

Complainant had provided names of accused persons with their parentage and previous and present residential addresses, which showed that accused persons were previously known to him

Despite such fact F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of 10 days and that too after consultation with nekmards

Record showed that police allegedly recovered an unregistered tractor from accused persons during the encounter

F.I.R. lodged for recovery of tractor did not contain S. 412, P.P.C. (dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity)

During the alleged encounter between police and accused persons nobody from either side was shown to have received any injury and even no bullet hit the tractor or police vehicle

Accused persons had already been granted bail in the F.I.R. registered for the recovery of tractor

After robbing the tractor, accused persons were allegedly plying it in the area, where complainant party resided

Such fact did not appeal to reason and created reason-able doubt

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused persons were released on bail accordingly.