Police told to produce Nimra as mother approaches CHS for marriage annulment


On Thursday, the Sindh High Court (SHC) issued notices to the Sindh Inspector General of Police (IGP), Eastern District SSP and other respondents regarding a petition for the recovery of Nimra Kazmi, a girl who disappeared from the Malir area and was later found. having married a man in Punjab of his own free will and the annulment of his marriage under the Sindh Child Marriage Restriction Act.

The petitioner, Nargis, said her daughter Nimra disappeared after leaving the house on April 20 and a case of kidnapping was registered after her disappearance. The mother argued that her daughter was not of legal age and that the police had not filed a charge sheet in relation to the abduction of her daughter despite knowing that she had been detained by a man, Najeeb Shahrukh, a resident of Taunsa Sharif.

Nargis said his daughter while imprisoned with Shahrukh claimed to have married him but appeared scared and under pressure. The petitioner stated that Nimra is under 18 and belongs to Shia sect, so her marriage without a wali and under Sindh Child Marriage Restriction Act is void and ab initio.

She maintained that the law did not allow marriage to a minor; therefore, Shahrukh, the Nikahkhawan and the witnesses can be prosecuted under Shariah and criminal laws. She said that Nimra was 14 years old, which was also certified in the National Database and Registration Authority certificate as well as in her school record.

The petitioner said that to ensure the welfare of the minor, the court should ensure her presence and order that she be returned to her parents from Shahrukh’s house. A divisional bench of the CHS, headed by Judge Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro, issued opinions to the IGP, Home Ministry, SSP East and others, and called for their comments on May 20. The court also ordered the SSP East to ensure Nimra’s presence. in court at the next hearing.

Appeals rejected

The Sindh High Court on Thursday dismissed appeals by four convicts against their life sentences in a kidnap-for-ransom case.

Ali Akbar, Naeem, Mukhtar Ahmed, Roohullah were sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti-terrorism court for kidnapping a citizen for ransom and given 10.15 million rupees for his release.

According to the prosecution, the appellants abducted Raheel Alam from Gulistan-e-Johar on February 6, 2018 and demanded 350 million rupees for his release. Later, the ransom amount was lowered to 10 million rupees after negotiations.

The police arrested the kidnappers, recovered the ransom money in their possession and rescued the citizen, who had been in captivity for 115 days.

Counsel for the appellants argued that Ali Akbar and Naeem were not assigned to specific roles by the prosecution and that the abductee was unable to assign them a role in the abduction before the court. court of first instance.

They said there was no record of a ransom being paid to the callers for the release of the abductee, while the money was paid by the callers to the police, which was then imposed on them. while being labeled as a ransom. Further, no identification parade was conducted through the abductee, the attorney said, and sought the appellants’ acquittal for lack of evidence.

The Additional Attorney General argued that the eyewitness account provided by the abductee himself was fully corroborated and supported the impugned judgment. He asked the court to dismiss the appeals.

A divisional bench consisting of Judge Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Judge Khadim Hussain Tunio, after hearing the arguments in the case, observed that the witnesses, the abductee and the plaintiff in the case had been subjected to a counter -prolonged questioning in the trial court, but the defense was unable to point to major discrepancies that could be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The court observed that the line-up was conducted following all guidelines established by the Supreme Court and that there was no legal defect in the line-up as alleged by counsel for the caller.

She further observed that the appellants’ guilt had been proven by the prosecution to the end. The court dismissed the convicts’ appeals and upheld the life sentence and other sentences under the terrorism law.


Comments are closed.