Prosecutor general put on notice on plea against acceptance of charge sheet

karachi: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the prosecutor general and others on an application against the acceptance of a charge sheet in an underage marriage and kidnapping case.

Applicant Zaheer Ahmed submitted that he was booked along with other family members in the child marriage and kidnapping case though the star witness had categorically stated on oath that she had not been kidnapped and had married with her free will.

Ahmed and others were booked by the police for kidnaping an underage girl from Karachi. According to the police, the man kidnapped the underage girl from AL-Falah area in Karachi with the abetment of other co-accused and married her in Lahore.

The applicant’s counsel contended that the additional district and sessions court failed to consider how the Sindh child marriage restraint act can be applied in the instant case as the solemnisation of the marriage between two consenting parties took place out of the legal jurisdiction of Sindh.

He submitted that the additional district and sessions court failed to consider that the marriage had not been declared invalid by the competent court of jurisdiction, while the kidnapping case was not made out as the age of girl was factually found to be above 14 years. He submitted that no evidence with regard to the trafficking of the girl was produced by the police. He said the additional district court had rightly disagreed with the investigation officer on Section 375 (v) the PPC relating to rape charges as no evidence was available with the police file. A single bench, headed by Justice Omer Sial, issued notices to the prosecutor general and others and called their comments on September 8.

Conviction upheld

The SHC dismissed the appeal of a convict in an extortion case. Sikandar Khan was sentenced to five years in imprisonment for demanding extortion from a doctor in the old Sabzi mandi area. According to the prosecution, the appellant had demanded extortion from the doctor in the name of a banned outfit and threatened him with dire consequences.

The additional prosecutor general submitted that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant, who demanded extortion from the doctor and fired shots at his clinic and also threw a grenade on February 20, 2020. A division bench, headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, observed that the case falls within the purview of the anti-terrorism law as the appellant terrorised the victim for demanding extortion. The court observed that the prosecution proved its charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and maintained his conviction awarded by an anti-terrorism court.