' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 6-1-2004 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby Criminal Appeal No,255 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and their conviction and sentence under section 365-A, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and under section 337-F(ii) to three years with compensation of Rs,10,000 to be paid to each injured/abducted person as Daman or in default was directed to be dealt with in terms of section 337-Y, P.P.C. And under section 342, P.P.C. To suffer R.I.
For five years awarded by the trial. Court were maintained.
2. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 24-3-1998 P.W.7 complainant Syed Obedullah Shah was going to Zhob from Qamar Din Karez in his vehicle. Muhammad Ibrahim also accompanied him when at about 1-30 p.m. They reached near Musafir Bridge on Quetta Zhob Road, a person standing armed on the road side, signalled them to stop. While the driver did not stop the vehicle, as a result firing was made at the vehicle from both the sides of the road. Thus, vehicle was stopped and complainant Malik Haji Muhammad received bullet injury. Meanwhile armed persons grappled them and blind folded them and drove the vehicle to an unknown place where they alighted them at some place. Three culprits stood there whereas two of them took the vehicle to some unknown place. Thereafter, they asked him to write a letter to his brother for payment of rupees fifty lacs as ransom. They spent the night there and in the morning, the abductees were taken to the hilly area. As the complainant was injured, they used to serve him with tea and thereafter they took cash of rupees ten thousand from them. In the meanwhile, Assistant Commissioner, Zhob raided the said place. In an encounter, the petitioners were arrested and the complainant and abductee were recovered from their possession. During investigation, the blood- stained clothes of complainant Syed Obedullah Shah were recovered. Blood-stained clothes of petitioner Taweez Khan who was injured in the encounter was also taken into possession. The cash amount was recovered from petitioners Muhammad Nabi and Bakht Muhammad vide memo.
Exh.P.A. On 25-3-1998 confessional statements of all the petitioners were recorded by the Magistrate in which they confessed the guilty. Thereafter, they were sent up to face trial before the Special Judge, S.T.A., Zhob.
3. To establish its case the prosecution examined P.W.1 Sultan Shah, Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate, who testified that the petitioners voluntarily confessed their guilt and such confessional statements were recorded by him. P.W.2 Malik Haji Muhammad Rahim informed the Levies Authorities about the abandoned vehicle of complainant. P.W.3 Abdul Ghaffar, Jamadar Special Levies, Zhob witness of recovery of abductees fully testified that abductees were recovered during encounter from the possession of the petitioners and also blood-stained clothes of abductee Syed Obedullah Shah and petitioner Taweez Khan were taken into possession. P.W.4 Dr. Arif Khan examined abductee Syed Obedullah Shah, XEN, Akbar Khan driver and petitioner Taweez Khan. P.W.5 Yar Muhammad was the marginal witness of recovery of vehicle of XEN which was taken into possession in his presence. P.W.6 Muhammad Shah also accompanied the raiding party and was the witness of recovery memo. P.W.7 Syed Obedullah Shah, P.W.8 Akbar Khan driver and P.W.9 Muhammad Ibrahim the abductees fully supported the case of prosecution. P. W.10 Abdul Ahmed, Naib Tehsildar was the Investigating Officer. P.W.11 Saifullah, Naib Tehsildar submitted the challan in the Court. P.W.12 Noorullah Naib Tehsildar was also the member of the raiding party who recovered the abductees. And P. W.13 Abdul Naffey brought the vehicle of the XEN from Shaghaloo to Zhob and informed Deputy Commissioner, Zhob about the said incident.
4. Petitioner in their respective statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. They neither examined themselves on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor led any evidence in defence.
5. On conclusion of trial the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Being aggrieved, petitioners challenged the judgment in appeal before the learned High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
7. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Sipra, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. It is vehemently contended that the confessional statements were recorded belatedly. He argued that all the three abductees have only implicated petitioners Hameed Gul, Taweez Khan and Bakht Muhammad whereas have exonerated petitioners Muhammad Nabi and Ghami therefore, they are entitled for acquittal. According td him offence does not fall under section 365- A, P.P.C. And at the most it falls within the ambit of section 365, P.P.C. Therefore, the sentences awarded to the petitioners were harsh.
9. Admittedly, the abductees were recovered from the possession of the petitioners on the next day of the incident i,e, 25-3-1998 during an encounter which took place in between raiding party and the petitioners. During that encounter complainant Syed Obedullah Shah as well as petitioner.
Taweez Khan were got injured. Beside that all of them voluntarily confessed their guilt. Accordingly, their confessional statements were recorded by P.W.1 Sultan Shah, Assistant Commissioner who fully corroborated and stated that the said confessional statements were true and voluntarily. It is also established on record that immediately after the abduction, petitioners demanded a ransom amount of Rs,50 lacs and got said letter written from complainant Syed Obedullah Shah to his brother. Irrespective of the same, it is also proved on record that the petitioners took Rs,10,000 from the abductees during their captivity. Thus, the ingredients of section 365-A, P.P.C. Are fully attracted. Simple demand of ransom amount for the release of abductees is sufficient to bring the case within its ambit. Though heard at length yet learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The case being heinous in nature should not be treated lightly, as such, petitioners do not deserve any leniency.
11. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.