Abduction for ransom
Abduction for ransom legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Complainant did not furnish detailed description of currency notes and their denominations which had raised questions regarding authenticity of payment of ransom as claimed by the complainant
Failure to provide specific details about ransom money, such as denomination and serial numbers, diminishes reliability of entire ransom allegation
Prosecution's failure to identify the place where ransom money was paid had created doubt in prosecution's case
Prosecution witnesses in whose presence ransom amount were paid to abductors were abandoned
Persons from whom complainant allegedly managed/collected ransom amount were neither cited as prosecution's witnesses nor produced in witness box
Testimony of witnesses who were present at critical moments of crime, such as payment of ransom, was inevitable for corroborating complainant's narrative
Failure to produce such witnesses had cast doubt on veracity of complainant's version and raised reasonable suspicion about nature of the incident
Non-production of such material witnesses also amounted to withholding of best available evidence, therefore, adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had those witnesses been produced they would not have supported prosecution's case
Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge
Appeal was allowed.
Police after obtaining search warrant from the Judicial Magistrate raided the house of the accused for search and arresting a suspected accused, who acted within the meaning of "terrorism" as defined under S.6 of the Act of 1997 by offering serious armed resistance causing bullet injuries to a DSP and a police constable
Police recovered heavy arms and ammunition, as per details mentioned in the remand reports, from the house of accused, who had previous criminal record
As such, sufficient grounds were available for believing that the accusation or information against the accused was well-founded for justifying his detention in police custody for further investigation by the police in the cases registered against him
It appeared from the perusal of the record that the material relating to the case(s) was transmitted by the Second Investigation Officer to the Administrative Judge but the latter declined police custody remand of the accused merely on the complaint of the accused regarding maltreatment
In such state of affairs, the proper course available to the Administrative Judge was remanding the accused for a short term to custody of police with direction to Investigating Officer to produce him before Medico-Legal Officer and in case there appeared from Medico-Legal Certificate that any bodily harm was caused to accused during remand, Administrative Judge was fully competent to take action in accordance with law against the Investigating Officer instead of remanding the accused to judicial custody to frustrate and defeat the investigation of heinous offences
Notable fact of the case was that none of the parties made any request for constitution of Joint Investigation Team to probe the case
Administrative Judge under the law was not vested with the power to pass such order
Under S.19(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Act of 1997), it was prerogative of the Government, if deemed necessary, to constitute Joint Investigation Team
Thus, the Administrative Judge had failed to appreciate the request of the second Investigating Officer for grant of police custody/remand of the accused, therefore, impugned orders granting remand of accused in judicial custody instead of police custody were illegal, arbitrary and against the law, which were likely to affect the investigation of the said crimes
By passing impugned order of constituting Joint Investigation Team, the Administrative Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction
In such circumstances, impugned orders were set-aside with direction to Investigation Officer of the cases to produce the custody of the accused before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, for passing orders afresh in accordance with law
Criminal revision applications were allowed accordingly.
No specific role was assigned to the present accused, rather all the accused persons had been incriminated with composite and alike role in the commission of offense out of whom, two accused had already been granted post arrest bail by the Trial Court
According to an affidavit submitted in the Trial Court, the complainant conceded to the bail of one of the accused and did not want to indict him for the charge and so far as the bail granted to the other accused was concerned, nothing was said that any petition for cancellation of bail was moved against him if the complainant was aggrieved of his bail
Role of the two accused that were granted bail was not dissimilar to the present accused
FIR was silent as to whether any ransom was paid or not
Case of accused was covered under the rule of parity and was also one of further inquiry
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.
Once the prosecution had proved that the deceased was "last seen" with the accused, then the "legal burden" under Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 on the prosecution would stand discharged, and then for the accused to avoid conviction for the charge of abduction, he would have to discharge the "evidential burden" under Art. 122 to provide a plausible explanation or produce evidence of facts to nullify the stance established by the prosecution
Mere bold evasive denial of accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. would not legally suffice to escape criminal culpability.
First Information Report was registered 5 days after incident of abduction for ransom wherein brother of complainant was allegedly abducted by accused persons
Accused persons were identified during identification parade
Names of dummies were not mentioned and only one identification parade was held in respect of two abductees
Dummies were same and identification parade of three accused persons was not conducted separately
No specific role was assigned to accused persons in the identification parade
Only putting hands on accused persons by witnesses was not sufficient to believe that those were the same accused persons who had committed offence
Such identification parade could not be relied upon for awarding punishment for imprisonment for life
Burden to prove guilt was upon shoulders of prosecution who was bound to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt
If single circumstance had created doubt in case of prosecution, its benefit was to go to accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right
High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court and acquitted them of charge
Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Normally delay in registration of FIR in cases of abduction for ransom occurs as relatives of abductee at the first instance remain busy in searching the abductee or in some cases they wait for contact to be established by abductors and always feel apprehensive of lives of their beloved ones
Delay in registration of FIR in cases of such like nature is not fatal to prosecution but has to be explained and is required to be considered with other evidence produced by prosecution for safe administration of justice
If evidence is free from all doubts then delay alone is not sufficient to disbelieve case of prosecution but if there is sufficient material available in evidence that shows that accused has not committed offence with which he is charged and such delay too would be fatal to case of prosecution.
Private Call Detail Record (CDR) produced by the complainant regarding tracing of call data of accused, on the basis of which the FIR, was registered, had not been placed on file
Said CDR, had no signature of issuing authority, nor verified by the concerned authorities
Recovery of alleged abductee, was also doubtful
Abduction from busy place of transport adda at noon time by four persons, was not appealable to a prudent mind
Statements of abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C., and before Trial Court were also contradictory to each other
Data in respect of cell numbers of complainant and alleged abductee, had also not been collected by Investigating Officer, which could show that they were called by the abductors on that numbers
Recovery memo in respect of mobile phones recovered from possession of accused persons, at the time of their arrest, had not been prepared
Court witness, also admitted that he conducted raid on the premises, without search warrants and that he could not conduct raid at a house without a warrant or FIR which meant that raid was conducted illegally
Supplementary statement of alleged abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded after delay of six days, due to which consultation and deliberation of complainant party for involving accused, could not be ruled out
Identification parade had been conducted after delay of 15 days
Said identification, was also not in accordance with law, as joint identification was conducted, which was not the requirement of law, because the identification of each accused was to be conducted separately which had created dent in the prosecution case
Accused persons, had not made any confession before the competent court, nor alleged abductee had been recovered from immediate possession of accused persons
Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt
Single circumstance was sufficient for creating doubt, and not so many circumstances, were required for creating doubt, the benefit of which must go to accused
After earning acquittal from the Trial Court, double presumption of innocence was acquired by accused
Court while sitting in appeal against acquittal, must be slow in reversing the judgment of acquittal, unless it was found to be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious on the face of it, or was the result of bare misreading or non-reading of any material evidence
In the present case, no such infirmity had been found in the impugned judgment
Trial Court had rightly acquitted accused persons, by extending them benefit of doubt after proper appraisal of evidence for which no exception could be taken.
Plea raised by accused was that there was delay in conducting test identification parade and there were discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses
Validity
Holding of identification parade was not mandatory and it was merely a corroborative piece of evidence
Two prosecution witnesses identified accused in Court and their evidence inspired confidence which was consistent on all material points
Nothing was found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to suggest that they had deposed falsely
Delay in holding identification parade was not fatal to prosecution
Minor discrepancies or shortfalls were not sufficient to cut the roots of prosecution case
Court should be dynamic in appreciating true facts of kidnapping for ransom case and drawing correct and rational inference and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case
Difference in quantum of punishment provided under S. 365-A, P.P.C. & S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was noticed
High Court, in absence of very strong reasons, declined to maintain death sentence as nature of offence under both the provisions was substantially the same
High Court converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life.
To constitute an offence under S.365-A, P.P.C., it was not necessary that money must have been passed on to the culprits
Simple demand of ransom for the release of the abductee was sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S.365-A, P.P.C.
In matters of abduction for ransom, parents as well as police invariably try their best to locate victim rather than promptly lodging F.I.R. for fear of death of victim
Delay in such matters is not always fatal, however, prosecution has to give some explanation or least circumstance for such delay in not intimating/reporting the matter to police.
Victim claimed that he was continuously kept confined for 20 days under arms and threats and during such period he was kept on liquid food and sometimes he was not provided any food
Surprisingly on the night when he was recovered in a result of police effort, he needed no medical treatment nor rest and on very next morning he went to his shop
Safe criminal administration of justice rested on principle of benefit of doubt, which demanded that benefit be extended in favour of accused
Prosecution failed in establishing charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt
High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted the accused of the charge
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
"Abduction for ransom", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945120
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Abduction for ransom"
2012 P Cr
MAJID alias MAJU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2010 P Cr
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 5 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Karachi2010 Y L R 1630
WAHAB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2022 S C M R 1225
SHAH ZAIB and others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2024 S C M R 1968
RIZWAN RASHEED and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2019 Y L R 390
ALLAH DINO alias BABOO — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)2012 S C M R 140
JAVED IQBAL and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2023 P Cr
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-III, LAHORE and 5 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2012 S C M R 721
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and others — Appellants Versus BILQIAZ KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan