Tue, 21-Oct-2025

Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads | Google Ads

SHC acquits two, set aside their life terms in kidnapping case

SHC

SHC acquits two, set aside their life terms in kidnapping case

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Thursday set aside life terms of two accused, convicted on charges of kidnaping for ransom by two different anti-terrorism courts (ATCs), and ordered their release if their custody is not required in any other case.

Appellants Imran Ahsan and Muhammad Zubair were convicted and awarded life imprisonment on June 15, 2015, and August 11, 2020, by ATC-IV and ATC-XV, respectively.

Appellants were booked for kidnapping Tallah Siddiqui 14, son of Pervaiz Ahmed Siddiqui, on November 2, 2008, along with co-accused Lubna and Sulman.

Lubna had later turned approver while Sulman was acquitted for want of evidence.

Read more: SHC acquits two ‘MQM activists’

Appellant Muhammad Zubair had escaped from judicial custody in 2013 and his case was separated from appellant Ahsan. Zubair was rearrested, tried and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Two-member SHC bench comprising Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Kausar Sultana Hussain found several loopholes in the arguments of the prosecution.

In its 18-page judgment authored by Kausar Sultana Hussain, the court found that though the complainant Pervaiz Ahmed in the First Information Report (FIR), which was lodged with a delay of two days, alleged that appellants and his son made phone calls from his son’s cell phone for the ransom, no call data was presented by the prosecution as evidence before the trial court.

The court noted that Talah Siddiqui who recorded his statement as prosecution witness before the trial court admitted during his cross-examination that he had not recorded his statement under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the judicial magistrate.

Read more: SHC orders for removal of illegal houses built on land allocated for road

The court also noted that the complainant in the FIR did not describe the appearance of the appellants as well as other accused whereas the approver did not disclose the name of accused Sulman in her statement under section 164 CrPC.