KARACHI: An anti-terrorism court has acquitted for want of evidence a couple in a case pertaining to kidnapping of a 65-year-old man for ransom.

Ali Akhtar and his wife Irum were charged with kidnapping Qazi Muhammad Ishaq, 65, in August 2019 and demanded Rs500,000 as ransom.

After hearing the prosecution and defence counsel, ATC-XII Judge Abid Zaman, who conducted the trial at the Judicial Complex inside the central prison, acquitted Ali Akhtar and his wife Irum as the prosecution failed to establish its case that they had along with their accomplices kidnapped a 65-year-old man and demanded ransom for his release in 2019.

Giving reason for the acquittal, the court stated that the statement of the complainant showed that before registration of an FIR, the complainant (son of abductee) as well as his sister received calls from the accused persons for demanding ransom. The complainant did not hand over his cell phone to police, including the investigating officer of this case, even, his mobile phone was not sent for forensics as had been admitted by him during cross-examination.

In his verdict, ATC judge mentions glaring discrepancies in prosecution’s case

The court stated such admission on the part of the complainant shook the very foundation of the prosecution case owing to reason that FIR was in fact lodged due to demand of ransom for the release of father of complainant.

Referring to the IO’s statement, the order further stated that during the cross-examination, the IO admitted that the complainant at the time of the registration of the FIR neither produced messages nor mobile data or mobile phone to the police.

He further admitted that no recovery of ransom amount was made while the IO admitted that the place of alleged recovery of the abductee was a populated area. However, the IO did not bother to include any private witnesses in the case.

The admission of IO made the case of the prosecution more doubtful for a single reason that when he did not secure mobile phones or alleged demand of ransom through messages from the accused person, how could he connect the accused in the commissioning of the instant crime, the court stated.

“Even at least, he has tried to justify the release of abductee Qazi Muhammad Ishaq from the alleged place of the incident through corroborative evidence. What to speak of authenticity of prosecution case, the investigating officer during his test of cross-examination categorically admitted the facts that mobile phone mentioned in memo of arrest and recovery not mention the availability of SIM therein, and mobile phones not sealed.”

The court mentioned discrepancies in the case.

It noted that the IO had admitted that a press conference was held by the DIG South regarding the case.

Quoting the press conference, the order said that according to the press conference the accused called family of the abductee at the Defence area for payment of ransom from where both accused persons were arrested and on their pointation abductee was recovered from Metroville, whereas according to memo of arrest and recovery, the IO along with the police party on spy information directly raided the flat situated in SITE-Area from where accused persons were arrested and abductee was recovered.

“This story makes the case of prosecution doubtful,” the court observed.

According to the prosecution, the complainant stated that his father, Qazi Muhammad Ishaq, 65, was abducted in August 2019 after he had gone outside his home. Later, he and his sister received voice messages on WhatsApp from a man claiming to be from “Military Intelligence”, who demanded Rs500,000 as ransom for his father’s release.

The complainant lodged a case, and police apprehended the accused and his wife from a flat, recovering the abductee, who died during the trial.

The police also claimed to have recovered an illegal weapon from accused Akhtar. However, the court acquitted him in the illegal weapons case as well.

Regarding the co-accused, the court noted that proclaimed offenders Al-Awal Khan alias Leghari, Muhammad Ayoob alias Doctor, and Muhammad Ashraf were proceeded against in absentia under Section 265-H (i) of the CrPC.

Published in Dawn, August 16th, 2025