1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- Appellant Muhammad Ziaul Haq son of Hafiz Hamid Raza dissatisfied from the judgment, dated 8-11-2005 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Central in Sessions Case No,344 of 2003 in Crime No,241 of 2003 under sections 385, 386, 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For two years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000 in case non-payment of fine he shall suffer three months more imprisonment with the benefit of section 382, Cr.P.C., the appellant had preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment.
2. ' Precisely the facts leading to the case are that complainant Dr. Najma Abbasi lodged report on 4- 10-2003 stating therein that she was performing duty in Specialist Clinic near Baqai Hospital 'Nazimabad Karachi at 7-45 p.m. An unknown person entered inside clinic, blocked her way demanded Rs,50,000. On complainant's resistant he extended threats. Complainant handed over Rs,6,000 in the meanwhile her brother P.W. Syed Tariq Ali reached the clinic for treatment of her son, incident was disclosed to him who lodged report who filed an application at Police Station Nazimabad. At about 11 p.m. That person again contacted the complainant demanded remaining amount extended threats. On 16-11-2003 the culprit contacted the complainant on telephone, who was 'advised to reach clinic on 18-11-2003 for payment of balance amount. At about 9-25 p.m. On the pointed date the culprit entered the room to whom Rs,10,000 was handed over by complainant in white envelope and was caught hold by the police officers present in plain dress who disclosed his name as Muhammad Ayub as well as his companion disclosed the name as Muhammad Ziaul Haq who was sitting on motorcycle bearing .No,KAD-6360 police arrested him along with motorcycle.
3. ' After usual investigation the appellant along with co-accused were challaned to face the trial.
4. ' At the trial charge Exh.1 under section 366, 34, P.P.C. Was framed and read over to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to substantiate the charge examined P. W.1 Dr. Najma Abbasi Exh.3, P.W.2 Syed Tariq Ali, Exh.4, P. W.3 A.S.-I. Muhammad Afzal Exh.6 and closed the side to lead evidence. The appellant and co-accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Exhs.10 and 11 denied the prosecution case and claimed that they are innocent. The trial Court after completing the case acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ayub whereas the appellant was convicted as stated above.
5. ' On the basis of the charge levelled against the appellant following points for determination were framed:--
(1) Whether the accused in furtherance of the common intention extorted Rs,6,000 and Rs,10,000 as a Bhatta from the complainant under threats of dire consequences as alleged by the prosecution?
(2) What offence if any has been committed by the accused?
6. ' Before appreciating the point raised on behalf of the appellant's counsel it will be just and proper to examine evidence produced by the prosecution. Complainant Dr. Najma Abbasi deposed that she was present on her private clinic when unknown person entered demanded Rs,50,000 extended threats, she informed incident to her younger brother P.W. Syed Tariq Ali who reported the matter to police, no action was taken. She had received telephonic call and was directed to arrange remaining amount. The caller disclosed his name as Shah Jee. On the pointed place and time culprit entered clinic, complainant gave him the envelope, police apprehended co-accused Muhammad Ayub. She did not identify co-accused whereas P.W. Syed Tariq Ali's statement is limited to the extent her sister informed him about money extorted by one person from her. On 18- 10-2003 two persons came of her sister demanded Bhatta to whom Rs,10,000 were paid and were apprehended by police. Their testimonies find support. From P.W. Muhammad Afzal who had conducted inquiry in the matter.
7. ' Learned defence counsel has contended that there are glaring contradictions between the statement of P.W. Dr. Najma Abbasi and Syed Tariq Ali relating to the manner of the occurrence for extortion of money as complainant has not categorically stated that appellant had extorted money on two occasions from the possession of the complainant. It is not apparent from the testimony of prosecution witnesses that the appellant had extorted money which was neither accepted in the testimony of P.W. Dr. Najma Abbasi although it is the prosecution case that an envelope contained Rs,10,000 was paid to the culprit by her which was recovered by the police in plain clothes in the clinic. First Information Report reveals, that one person who had disclosed his name as Shah Jee had contacted the complainant on phone while according to the other version appellant was standing outside the clinic when acquitted accused entered the clinic to extort money.
8. ' Plain reading of section 383, Pakistan Penal Code defines extortion rules as under:-- "Extortion".--- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, comits "extortion".
9. Section 385, P.P.C. Is attracted when a person is put in fear or attempts were made to put him in fear of injury for committing extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years or fine or with both. On scrutiny of evidence produced by the prosecution more particularly when the allegations against the appellant are that he was standing outside the clinic when acquitted accused went inside to extort money, the ingredients of section 383, P.P.C. Are not spelled out from the evidence recorded by the trial Court as the complainant Dr. Najma Abbasi was not put in fear by the appellant of any injury for committing an act. In view of the above discussion the prosecution has failed to establish charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof impugned judgment is set aside, appeal is accepted. Appellant is present on bail. He is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Surety stands discharged.
10. ' These are the reasons for the short order, dated 7-8-2007 whereby Criminal Appeal No,513 of 2005 was accepted.