Pakistan Penal Code 1860 Section 364

364.  Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

(a)  A kidnaps Z from Pakistan, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this Section.

(b)  A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this Section.

COMMENTARY

1. Scope. Demand of ransom from the father of the boy. Offence of aggravated form. PLD 1957 S.C. (Ind) 331. A girl of six years engaged in playing remains in the lawful custody of her father. 1973 SCMR 488. Bail. Rule of consistency. 1989 ALD 66(2). Kidnapping and abduction in order to murder essential. 1996 PCr.LJ 478.

2.  Remission by President. During pendency of petition for leave to appeal, President in exercise of his prerogative under Art. 45 of the Constitution, had granted special remission of death sentence to that of life imprisonment to Juvenile offender who were sentenced to death. In presence of notification dated 13.12.2001, petition for enhancement of sentence cannot justifiably be entertained. Leave to appeal was thus, refused. PLJ 2005 SC 640.

3.  Appreciation of evidence. There was unexplained delay of five hours in lodging F.I.R. though the police station was at a distance of 1 mile. Post-mortem report shows that at the time of post-mortem examination dead body was decomposed and foul smelling was coming from dead-body. Nobody had witnessed occurrence and complainant after consultations and deliberations lodged F.I.R. against appellants. It is suspected that one of appellant's niece had illicit relations with deceased. High Court was of the considered view that appellants killed deceased under grave and sudden provocation. Considering it a case of grave and sudden provocation alter the sentence from 302(b) to 302(c). Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended to appellants. Father of appellant who was a lame person possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out. So he acquitted from charge. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1119.

Trial Court held that not a single word was recorded in the FIR as to why nephew of complainant was abducted. However, in supplementary statement, complainant/PW asserted that accused had in tuitions to Kill abductee. Said Supplementary statement was recorded after lapse of 3 months of the alleged occurrence. According to trial Court said statement created a doubt in the story of prosecution. While giving benefit of doubt respondent was created appeal dismissed. 2006 P.Cr.R. (Lah) 170.