' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,518/T of 2004 filed by Ikram- ul-Haq and Muqarrab Khan appellants, Criminal appeal No,228/T of 2003 filed by Muqarrab Khan and Ikram-ul-Haq appellants, Criminal Appeal No,223-T of 2003 filed by Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq, Janab Gul appellants, Criminal appeal No,383 /T of 2003 filed by Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq, Ahmad Din appellants, Criminal Appeal No,229-T of 2003 filed by Ahmad Din appellant and Criminal Appeal No,254-T of 2003 filed by Muhammad Nazir appellant. Ikram-ul- Haq, Muqarrab Khan, Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq, Janab Gul and Ahmad Din appellants were convicted and sentenced by Judge Special Court Anti-Terrorism No,l, Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory vide his judgment dated 14-5-2003 as under:-- ' Ikram-ul-Haq, Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq and Janab Gul appellants to death and also liable for forfeiture of property under section 7(e) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A, P.P.C.
' Muqarrab Khan and Ahmad Din appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and also liable for forfeiture of property under section 7 (e) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A, P.P.C.
2. Briefly facts of the case as narrated by Muhammad Javed Siddiqui, complainant, are that he has two sons and two daughters, the youngest one is Amana Siddiqui aged about 3 years, who used to visit alone the house of complainant's neighbour Muqarrab Khan. On 26-6-2002 when he was present on his shop, his wife telephonically informed him about the missing of Amana Siddiqui from the house since 11-00 a.m. And has not come back till--that time. He made a search for her in the neighbourhood, around his residence as well as inquired from his relatives, he got announcement from the mosque about her missing but she could not be made available. On the same day, he made a rappat in police station and also got published the advertisements in the newspapers and got CLI connection on his personal Telephone No,212427. On 27-6-2002 he received a call on his telephone by an unknown person from Telephone No,0922519291, who informed him that his daughter Amana Siddiqui is in their custody at Kohat and demanded Rs,50 lacs for her release, otherwise his daughter will be done to death. He requested that person to get his conversation with his daughter and to reduce the amount of ransom as he was not in a position to fulfil such huge demands and also inquired the place where the ransom amount was to be paid.
The said caller after hearing him, extended threat of dire consequences, in case the matter is reported to the police and directed him to wait for his another call, thereafter, he received different telephone calls from different telephone numbers, which were made from a PCO number of Billitong, Kohat. Due to fear and for the safety of his daughter's life he did not inform the matter to any one. On 3-7-2002 he again received a telephone call from Telephone No, 092-2561124-Kohat, who asked him to come on 4-7-20Q2 at 10-00 a.m. With rupees 15 lacs for the release of his daughter at PCO of Nasir Mahmood Cadet College, Billitong More, District Kohat. The said caller also managed his conversation with his daughter. He again warranted him not to inform the matter to the police and threatened that his daughter will be killed in case the matter is reported to the police.
' On 4-7-2002 he along with Waheed-ul-Haq, Abdur Rasheed, Muhammad Azam and Zia-ul-Haq P.Ws. Reached near PCO of Nasir Mahmood at Billitong Cadet College More, at about 8-45 a.m. In the meantime, the officials of local police met him there in a private vehicle. He reported the matter to them, in the meantime a Toyota Corolla Car No,H-3934, Peshawar came there. From the said car Ikram-ul-Haq alighted, having his daughter, who was previously known by him and his companions, proceeded towards PCO, whereas, besides Ikram-ul- Haq 4 other persons including the driver, were in the car. The police apprehended the accused along with abductee and the car.
The names of the accused come to light as Ahmad Din, (car driver), Muhammad Ishtiaq, Janab Gul and Nazir Gul.
3. The accused were charge sheeted on 2-9-2002 under section 7(e) AT A 1997 read with section 365-A, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the trial prosecution in order to prove its case produced seven witnesses in all and besides the oral evidence the prosecution got exhibited documents Exh.P.A. To Exh.P.K., then, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which denied the allegations levelled against them with regard to abduction of complainant's daughter for ransom and her recovery from their possession.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, learned counsel for Ikram-ul- Haq and Muqarrab Khan appellants submits that neither it is a case of abduction nor ransom, that on the same set of evidence Mst. Naveeda Firdus and Mst. Fahmeeda Begum have been acquitted by the learned trial Court while Muqarrab Khan appellant has been convicted and sentenced although he has been searching the abductee along with the complainant. Further submits that in fact none of the appellants was arrested from the spot as mentioned in the F. I.R. And this fact , is prima facie proved from Exh.P.B. And Exh. P.I., which are rappat lodged by Akleem Khan, A.S.-I. P.W.2 and rough site-plan. He also submits that complainant had stated that Ikram-ul-Haq never made a telephone call to him, that complainant had told before the trial Court that he had no money at that time, that complainant had not Shown any suspicion against Ikram-ul-Haq, that complainant had admitted that he received telephone calls from different numbers of Kohat but he did not tell anything about the said telephone numbers, that complainant admitted that due to fear of death of his daughter he did not inform the matter to the local police while on the other hand, he stated that he asked the police of Billitong to save the life of his daughter, that neither ransom was demanded nor ransom money was shown to anybody, that from the personal search of five accused nothing was recovered, that although the claim of the complainant was that he received telephone calls from 26-6-2002 to 3-7-2002 but there are only two calls on the telephone number of the complainant. He lastly submits that no case under section 365-A, P.P.C. Is made out against Ikram-ul-Haq appellant.
6. Learned counsel for Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq and Janab Gul, who has already died, appellants submits that prosecution has failed to produce any evidence regarding the demand of ransom, that neither Akleem Khan, A.S.-I., P.W.2 nor the Investigating Officer had stated that they had seen or taken into possession Rs,15 lacs, which was allegedly with the complainant to be paid for ransom, that question regarding the asking for ransom through telephone on 27-6-2002 and 3- 7-2002 was put to the appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., that there is only general question, which has been asked that on 27-6-2002 till onward Rs,15 lacs were demanded for ransom. He submits that D.W.l has stated that on 10, 11 and 12-6-2002 Nazir Gul appellant was on leave while according to him on 26-6-2002 he was present on his duty and he was also available on his duty on 1st and 2nd of July, 2002, that recovery of abductee from the owner of Nasir PCO is very doubtful, that stories mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. And in the Rappat lodged by Akleem Khan A.S.-I. P.W.2 in the daily diary register of Police Post Billitong, Kohat Exh.P.B. Are totally different. He submits that one Liaqat had produced the alleged abductee in the police station and the surety bond was also taken from him and not from Javed Siddiqui complainant. Further submits that though the accused were arrested on 3-7:2002 but the alleged abductee was already available in Police Station, Billitong, Kohat, that conduct of complainant is most unnatural, that Ikram- ul-Haq was neighbourer of the complainant and it is impossible that he will abduct his daughter in order to get ransom, that statement of Abdul Hameed P.W.5 is tutored one, who admitted that he gave affidavit to accused persons during investigation that victim was not in the laps of Ikram-ul-Haq but was playing in her house, that he knew the accused persons because they had come to attend the marriage of son of Muqarrab Khan appellant but he could not tell the name of any other participant of the marriage, that confessional statement before the police is not admissible in evidence, that appellants did not know that victim was ever abducted for ransom or not, that at most the case would be under section 365, P.P.C. And not under section 365-A, P.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for Ahmad Din appellant submits that only evidence against appellant is of Abdul Hameed P.W.5, that Ahmad Din appellant had produced four D.Ws. In his defence, that he also appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On oath in order to rebut the prosecution evidence, that neither he was conspirator nor he was conniving with their co-accused and was only driver of the car and that he had committed no offence.
' Learned counsel in criminal appeal No,254-2003 for getting the car, which was being driven by Ahmad Din, appellant, submits that the said car was taken on rent by Nazir Gul on 3-7-2002 from Muhammad Nazir owner of the car, that appellant never received any notice for forfeiture of the said car, that earlier appeal filed by Shaukat Ali Khan bearing Criminal Appeal No,232/T-2003 was dismissed in limine, as the same was not pressed, so again the appeal was filed by Muhammad Nazir and there is no other claimant of said car.
' Learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that case is fully proved because Exh.D.A. Shows the photographs of the abductee along with the accused persons. He submits that this is hard fact that victim was abducted from Fatehjang, District Attock and was recovered from Billitong Kohat from the custody of the accused, that Akleem Khan, A.S.-I. P.W.2 is the natural witness, that he is an officer, who had recovered the victim and arrested the accused persons, that there was no reasons for false implication of the appellants, that detail of ransom has been brought on record by learned defence counsel himself at page 15 of the statement of Muhammad Javaid Siddiqui complainant P.W.3, that Nazim was never produced either before the police or before the trial Court, who according to learned defence counsel had produced the alleged abductee. He submits that it was Ikram-ul-Haq and Muqarrab Khan, who shifted the child from Fatehjang to Kohat, that Ikram-ul-Haq appellant is Constable in police department, that there are telephone calls on the telephone number of the complainant from Kohat. He submits that Presiding Officer of the trial Court on the Day of judgment has lodged a case under section 506, P.P.C. And 7-ATA against the accused persons.
' Learned A.A.-G. Submits that complainant had admitted that it was Ikram- ul-Haq, who came out of the car along with victim, that Ahmad Din was only driver of the car, though he stated that car was taken on rent by the accused and he was driver of the said car.
' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with the able assistance. As far as, Muqarrab Khan appellant is concerned, he was not present at the spot and it has also come on record that he has been searching the victim along with the complainant. Both of them live in different houses. He is neighbourer of the complainant, so while granting him benefit of doubt, his appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded against him is set aside. He is in Jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
' Now we take up the case of Ahmad Din appellant, who is driver of the car. In order to prove his innocence, he has produced four D.Ws. In his defence and according to their statements the said car was taken on rent and it was Nazir Gul appellant, who had taken the car on rent from Muhammad Nazir, appellant, who has also filed Criminal Appeal No,254 of 2003 for the taking the said car being owner. It has been proved on record that he has nothing to do with his co-accused, he was only driver of the car, even learned counsel for the complainant did not press against him, so appeal filed by him is also accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court is set aside. He is in Jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
' Now we take up the case of Ikram- ul-Haq, Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq and Janab Gul appellants. It is hard fact that victim was abducted from Fatehjang and was recovered from Kohat and it is also hard fact that she was abducted for the purposes of ransom. The detail of telephone and demand of ransom has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Javed Siddiqui complainant had recorded 3-1/2 pages statement before the trial Court and there is also a lengthy cross-examination of 23 pages but the defence could not discredit him. Muhammad Javaid Siddiqui complainant P.W.3 has no animus against Ikram-ul-Haq appellant to falsely implicate him. He is resident of District Kohat and victim was also recovered from him, the police took him into custody and case against him is fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt, so his appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court is maintained in toto. His death sentence is confirmed and murdered reference to his extent is replied in affirmative.
' So far as, Nazir Gul, Muhammad Ishtiaq and Janab Gul appellants, are concerned we are of the considered opinion that from the bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses case against them is of doubtful nature because abductee was not recovered from them and God better knows whether they knew that the girl, which was in the laps of Ikram-ul-Haq, was abducted from Fateh jang, moreover, they were only sitting in the car at the time when abductee was recovered from Ikram-ul-Haq appellant and their participation in the occurrence is of doubtful nature. One of them, namely, Janab Gul had already died and this fact has not been denied either by learned A.A.-G or by learned counsel for the complainant, so the other two appellants, namely, Nazir Gul and Muhammad Ishtiaq are also acquitted from the charge. Their appeal is also accepted.
Conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court is set aside. They are in Jail and they shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Their death sentence is not confirmed and murder reference to their extent is replied in negative.
' As far as, Criminal Appeal No,254 of 2003 filed by Muhammad Nazir for getting the car, is concerned, the bare perusal of statements of P.Ws. And D.Ws. Show that the said car was taken on rent by Nazir Gul appellant from Muhammad Nazir owner of the car and neither he nor the driver of the car knew that girl was abducted so this appeal filed by Muhammad Nazir is also accepted and the Car in question is handed over to him.