365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
COMMENTARY
1. Forum of appeal. Forum of appeal would be decided on the basis of accusation and the nature of offence for which the accused is initially tried, irrespective of ultimate conviction. 1999 PCr.LJ 485.
2. Appreciation of evidence. Prosecution evidence is consistent on material points. No enmity or grudge has been established to falsely implicate appellant by victim or other witnesses. In such circumstances, when all three witnesses have shown their presence at the time of occurrence and supported prosecution case, Court has relied upon them in holding that offence under Section 365 PPC has been established. Victim was abducted only and was taken to neighbouring house and that appellant is a young lad of about 20 years and also being first offender sentence of seven years seems to be harsh. Appellant has remained in Jail for substantial period. His sentence is reduced from seven years to 4« years. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 449.
Delay in lodging of F.I.R. in case of abduction in which honour and dignity of family members of victim is involved is not material. Parties usually take time in discussing whether case should be registered or not. In such circumstances, delay is not material in abduction cases, especially where young girl is abducted and kept in illegal confinement for purpose of commission of zina. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 449.
It seems that complainant has widened his net in order to involve 12 persons in an occurrence in which no injury has been received by complainant and there is nothing on record to corroborate his statement. Admittedly complainant is inimical to accused persons due to criminal and civil litigation pending between parties. PW-2 and PW-3 are not witnesses of locality and they are very closely related with complainant and they cannot be considered as dis-interested persons. Complainant has failed to prove case. Assessment of evidence in appeal against acquittal is different than appeal against conviction. Consistent view of superior Courts is that appraisal of evidence in appeal against acquittal is different than appeal against conviction. Due to abovesaid reasons and after considering law, or High Court is of the view that complainant has failed to make out a case for interference in judgment passed by learned trial Court by which Respondents Nos. 1 to 12 have been acquitted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 164 = 2002 PCr.LJ 1132.
Petitioner had complained that despite statement of petitioner, S.H.O. concerned had not proceeded to cancel case, which should have been the logical consequence after petitioner had refuted allegations in F.I.R. None of persons against whom F.I.R. in question had been registered, ever turned up to seek requisite relief. If petitioner, as claimed by him, had never been abducted and his statement to that effect had been recorded by Investigating Officer, then he was left with no grievance and there was no logic in his coming to the Court, time and again, seeking cancellation of case. Even otherwise petitioner had the audacity of trumpeting the character of his own sister. Conduct exhibited by petitioner had shown the depravity of his own character. Demeanor of petitioner and the way petitioner was conducting himself was a direct affront to the sacred teaching of Islam. Petition was dismissed. 2005 YLR 1345.
No comments:
Post a Comment