AZHAR SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abducting a person for ransom, while his five co-accused were acquitted by the trial court on the basis of the same evidence. A notable feature of the case was the demise of both the complainant and the abductee in an accident prior to their examination before the trial court. The core legal question concerned the effect of the non-appearance and non-examination of the complainant and the abductee on the trial, alongside the sustainability of the conviction when co-accused facing the same evidence were acquitted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the evidence on record required a complete reappraisal to determine these important facts and ensure safe administration of justice.
- What is the legal effect of the non-appearance and non-examination of the complainant and the abductee during a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained when co-accused facing the exact same evidence have been acquitted by the trial court?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for a complete reappraisal of evidence in cases presenting conflicting co-accused acquittals and unavailable key witnesses?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- While his five co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court, Azhar Shahzad, the petitioner was convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. Etcetra, for abducting Hafiz Waqar Ahmad for ransom, with reference to F.I.R. No,442 dated 25-8-2003 of Police Station Taxila District Rawalpindi. The petitioner failed before learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in his appeal against conviction vide judgment, dated 9-2-2005 and hence he seeks leave to appeal.
2. A peculiar feature of the case is that the complainant/father of the abductee and Hafiz Waqar Ahmad, the abductee had died in an accident somewhere near Rahim Yar Khan and hence both of them could not be examined in the trial Court at Taxila.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we would like to see the effect of non- appearance of the complainant as well as the abductee on the trial of the accused. It is also noticed that five co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted on the basis of same evidence used against the petitioner. We are of the view that in order to determine certain important facts, the evidence on record requires a complete reappraisal. Leave is granted accordingly.