The Sindh High Court on Wednesday set aside life imprisonment of two convicts in a kidnapping for ransom case after giving them the benefit of the doubt.Mohammad Jumman Brohi and Ghulam Yaseen...
The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday set aside life imprisonment of two convicts in a kidnapping for ransom case after giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Mohammad Jumman Brohi and Ghulam Yaseen Jarwar were sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) which found them guilty for kidnapping two men for ransom in April 2012.
According to the prosecution, the appellants along with the absconding co-accused kidnapped Ehsanullah and his relative Abul Raheem on April 8, 2012 from the Manghopir area and demanded Rs60 million for their release. The appellants were arrested by the police during a raid and they confessed to kidnapping the two men and receiving Rs2.5 million for their release.
The appellants’ counsel submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case as the identification of the persons whom they had allegedly abducted could not be relied upon as there were glaring defects in the identification parade.
He submitted that there was no proof that the appellants had demanded any ransom or were paid by the families. The lawyer requested the SHC to set aside the conviction of the appellants.
A deputy prosecutor general half-heartedly supported the trial court order and did not rebut the query raised by the high court with regard to weaknesses in the identification parade.
A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the evidence of the case observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the kidnapping for ransom charges as eyewitnesses did not give description of the appellants in their statements.
The high court observed that it was held by the Supreme Court that if there was a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in prudent doubt about the guilt of the accused, the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as matter of grace and concession but as matter of right.
The SHC observed that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellants for the offence for which they had been charged with. The high court acquitted the appellants of the charge, setting aside the trial court judgment.