' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Altaf Khan appellant was tried in case F.I.R. No.487 of 2U02, dated 30-12-2002 registered under sections 342/ 365/452/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Liaquat Abad, Lahore by the Judge Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Lahore who vide judgment dated 30-4- 2003 convicted the appellant under section 7(e) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also held liable to forfeiture of property under section 7(e) of the ibid Act. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.332-J of 2003 while the . Complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.487 of 2003, seeking enhancement of sentence of the appellant. Both these matters are being disposed of together by this judgment.
3. Succinctly the prosecution story as contained in F.I.R. Lodged on the written complaint Exh.P.A.
Made by the Syed Ali Naqvi, P.W.2, is that he was a property dealer having Commercial Market in Model Town Society under the name and style of "I-S" Model Town Market. He employed Altaf Khan appellant as driver two years' ago. On 21-12-2002 appellant along with his maternal nephew namely Kamran alias Bobi and two unknown persons after abducting him from his house situated at 170-S, Model Town, took him to his market and confined in a room. The accused not only took obscene photographs of the complainant but was also subjected to sodomy and compelled to put signatures on various papers in addition to claiming Rs. 10,00,000. The accused extended threats to kill him and to circulate his obsence photographs. The complainant remained subject of captivity for hours when he found an opportunity to escape.
' According to the contents of the complaint the complainant remained silent due to his dignity and self-respect but the accused were still threatening and as such the present F.I.R. Was registered.
4. After the registration of the case matter was investigated by Muhammad Jameel Rao, S.-I.
P.W.6*, who made spot inspection and prepared site-plan Exh.P.H. On 1-1-2003, appellant was.
Arrested and during investigation on 3-1-2003 he led to the recovery of Cassette P.1' which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. On 10-1-2003 appellant also led to the recovery of camera P.2 and tape recorder P.3 which were taken into custody vide memo. Exh.P.C. The Investigating Officer got issued non-bailable warrants qua the arrests of Kamran co-accused of the appellant and after complying with legal formalities submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced six witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant.
' Muhammad Akram P.W.l deposed about the confessional statement of the appellant when he was under custody and was brought to the Court of Illaqq Magistrate for physical remand. Syed Ali Naqvi P.W.2 being complainant while supporting the prosecution case made statement before the trial Court. Ghulam Dastigir, FC P.W.3 was present when the appellant led to the recovery of said articles. He also signed the recovery memos. Dr. Sajid Bashir, P.W.4 medically examined the victim to determine about the commission of sodomy upon him and prepared report Exh.P.E. Atif Imran, A.S.-I., P.W.5 entered formal F.I.R. He also arrested the appellant on 1-1-2003 and recovered .30 bore pistol P.4 from him along with bullets P.5/1-3 and secured the same vide memo. Exh.P.E. Thereafter he handed over the custody of the appellant at Police Station, Liaquat Abad, Lahore. Muhammad Jamil Rao, S.-I. P.W. Conducted formal investigation in this case as narrated earlier.
5. Trial Court examined the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who while answering to the question , why present case has been registered against you and why the witnesses have deposed against you? Replied as under:- "I have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. I was serving with complainant and intimated him as I want to leave his job and also demanded my salary which annoyed the complainant who extended me threats that in case of leaving his service, I will be involved in a heinous case finding no escape to come outside the jail. There is no incriminating evidence against me."
' The appellant did not make any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produce any evidence in his defence.
6. Trial Court, after appraisal of evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 30-4-2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the legality of the impugned judgment, submitted that there is an unexplained delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R. Which fact is sufficient to shatter the credibility of the prosecution case, the entire case rests upon the sole statement of Syed Ali Naqvi complainant P.W.2 who was a man of dubious character and trial Court had already disbelieved him qua the offence of commission of sodomy upon him by the appellant but the remaining statement with regard to his abduction for ransom had been erroneously relied upon by the trial Court in the absence of any independent corroborative piece of evidence. It was submitted that during the investigation obscene picture of the complainant, which was allegedly prepared by the co-accused was never recovered and that the recovery evidence i.e. Cassette, cassette player, camera, at the instance of the appellant had already been disbelieved by the trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that the story with regard to the commission of offence as narrated by the complainant while lodging the F.I.R. As well as at the time of making 'statement before the trial Court was fantastic, unbelievable and very unnatural. It was submitted that the bare perusal of the statement of the complainant reveals that complainant had ample opportunity to raise hue and cry to attract the people for his help but he had not adopted the said modus operandi and remained silent at the time of commission of offence, hence the conduct of the complainant in the circumstances on the face of it shows that he was not the trust-worthy witness. It was lastly argued that in the circumstances appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
' Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and the State vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the delay in lodging an F.I.R. Was very natural because the reputation of the complainant was at stake but since the accused continued threatening the complainant who was left with no option but to lodge the F.I.R.
It was submitted that the complainant had employed the appellant as his driver and had no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve him in this case whereas the data available on record clearly indicates that driver/appellant had abducted his master (complainant) in order to force him to sign the documents qua the property owned by him as well as to get Rupees ten lacs as ransom and that in the circumstances, trial Court while relying upon the statement of complainant had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Learned counsel for the complainant while relying on Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) argued that the statement of a sole witness could be relied upon to convict and sentence the accused on the charge of capital sentence.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have 'observed that the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under section 377, P.P.C. Because the medical report prepared by Dr. Sajid P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution case. Trial Court has also disbelieved the recovery evidence relied upon by the prosecution and conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on the sole statement of Syed Ali Naqvi, P.W.2.
It is well-settled that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is required to decide the criminal matter and the unimpeachable evidence of a single witness could be relied upon to convict a person even on the charge of capital sentence.
' The only eye-witness of this occurrence is the victim himself i.e. Complainant of this case namely Syed Ali Naqvi P.W.2. Admittedly, complainant is a rich person and owner of valuable property situated in Model Town, Lahore. The appellant was employed by the complainant as a driver of his car who on. 21-12-2003 with the connivance of his co-accused being armed with fire-arm forcibly abducted complainant from his house and confined him in a room situated at the upper storey of the market owned by the Complainant for several hours. During the said confinement allegedly appellant also committed sodomy upon the complainant as well as prepared his nude pictures in order to blackmail him and to force him to sign certain documents qua the property owned by him as well as to pay a huge amount as ransom. No doubt trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under section 377, P.P.C. As the medical report was not positive but the fact that complainant was abducted by the appellant and his co-accused and remained under their illegal confinement for several hours stands established from the statement of the complainant. The appellant was employed as a driver by the complainant and according to the defence plea appellant was involved in this case because he wanted to leave the job whereas the complainant never wanted him to do so. We are afraid, the defence plea taken up by the appellant is repellant to common sense. It is not believable that a master would involve his driver (a low paid servant) in such a heinous offence only on the ground that he never wanted him (appellant) to leave the job and would cast allegation that he (master) was subjected to sodomy by the accused (his driver) without caring about his reputation, honour and status in the society. We have also observed that during the cross-examination which runs into many pages not a single question worth the name of enmity was put to the complainant to show that he had any animosity with the appellant for his false involvement in this case. After careful scrutiny and analyzing the data available on record we are of the firm view that the sole statement of the complainant qua his abduction for ransom by the appellant and his co-accused in the circumstances of this case, is sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant and we have no reasons to doubt the credibility of this witness who had no axe to grind against the appellant.
10. The crux of the above discussion is that this appeal has no merits and the same stands dismissed.
11. As the Criminal Revision No.487 of 2003, seeking enhancement of sentence of'the appellant learned counsel for the complainant does not press the same which stands dismissed.