' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Appellants, Usman Ali, Abdul Zaheer and Muhammad Imtiaz were tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,I, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 13-5-2006, handed down in case F.I.R. No,411 of 2005 dated 1-8-2005, registered under section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 7, A.T.A. Convicted each of the appellant under section 7(e) of A.T.A., 1997 and sentenced imprisonment for life to each of them along with forfeiture of their properties. Appellants Usman Ali and Abdul Zaheer have challenged their conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,853 of 2006 and appellant, Muhammad Imtiaz has challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,854 of 2006. Since the judgment impugned in both these appeals is the same, therefore, these are being decided through this single judgment.
2. On 1-8-2005 at 7-20 p.m.. Afaq Ahmed, the complainant through a telephone call was informed about the abduction of his son Nauman Ahmed and a demand of Rs,20,00,000 as ransom was made for his release. He made a call to the police on 15 and thereafter a case regarding the abduction of Nauman Ahmed was registered.
3. The charge against the appellants was framed who denied the same, thus, prosecution evidence was summoned. The prosecution produced nine witnesses in support of the case. Afaq Ahmed complainant appeared as P.W.1 and corroborated his complaint Exh.P.A. Naeem Iqbal, Special Judicial Magistrate appeared as P.W.2, in whose supervision the identification parade was conducted. Nauman Ahmed, P.W.5 correctly identified the appellant as accused. Ihsan Ullah, constable appeared as P.W.4. He stated that he along with other police officials went to the house of the complainant where Nasir Ahmed S.-I. P.W.7 recorded the statement of Afaq Ahmed, Zahid Tauqeer and Nauman Ahmed, P.Ws. On pointation of Nauman Ahmed, Nasir Ahmed, S.-I. Prepared rough site-plan of the place/house in which he was kept after abduction and from where, the appellants were arrested. On personal search of Abdul Zaheer a sum of Rs,2,00,000, pistol and a mobile phone P.2 were recovered from him. On personal search of Usman Ali a sum of Rs,1,00,000 and a pistol were recovered from him whereas on personal search of Imtiaz Ahmed a sum of Rs,1,00,000 and a pistol were recovered. Abdul Zaheer, appellant also got recovered motorcycle.
Nauman Ahmed appeared as P.W.5 and stated that on 1-8-2005 when he reached Liaqat Chowk on motorcycle a white coloured Mehran car stopped him and the accused pushed him in the car and got him seated on pistol point. He was taken to an unknown place where the accused made him talk to his father and demanded a sum of Rs,-20,00,000 from his father as ransom. Thereafter, the accused told him that he could go as they had obtained a sum of Rs,4,00,000 from his father.
On reaching his house, the police recorded his statement and he led to po,lice to the place where he was kept by the appellants. The police then arrested the appellants and in the identification parade he identified all of them. Nasir Ahmed, S.-I. Who investigated the case appeared as P.W.7 arrested the appellants and recovered the ransom money and pistols from them. The evidence of others witnesses was of formal nature.
4. The appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Abdul Zaheer appellant in reply to a question "why this case against you and why the P.Ws.
Have deposed against you?" stated to the following effect:-- "No public witness had deposed against me. I am innocent in this case and I have nothing to do with this case. Actually Nauman Ahmad abductee is friend of mine and Usman for last three years prior to this occurrence and he had continuously telephonic contacts with me and Usman my co- accused. Nauman Ahmad himself was involved in his abduction to usurp money from his father. I am not involved in the abduction of Nauman Ahmad, he just to save his own skin from this case deposed against me. I am innocent in this case. I am Master in English. I cannot think to commit such an offence like this."
' Similar is the answer of other appellants in reply to the above said question. The appellants, in their defence, also produced Syed Sulman Ali as D.W.1 and Mazhar Hashmi as D.W.2.
5. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above, hence these appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Afaq Ahmed, the complainant had not named any accused; that Nauman Ahmed, the alleged abductee was friend of the accused persons and he had participated in the occurrence in order to extract money from his father; that the involvement of Nauman Ahmed in the case was evident from the telephone calls made by him to the appellants; that the learned trial Court had failed to frame charge under section 7(e) of A.T.
A., 1997 and as such the trial was bad in law and that the complainant and the abductee had effected a compromise with the appellants and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to be acquitted.
7. The learned counsel representing the State contended that the judgment of the learned trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, it did not call for any interference and that the offence committed by the appellants was a non-compoundable offence, as such the compromise referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, was of no consequence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record with their assistance.
9. The prosecution case consists of the following pieces of evidence:--
(i) The ocular account.
(ii) Demand for ransom.
(iii) The identification of the appellants in the test as well as before the learned trial Court.
(iv) Recovery of cash, pistols and motorcycle.
10. Insofar as the ocular account and identification test are concerned, the most important witness is the abductee Nauman Ahmed, P.W.5 himself who had recognized all the appellants in the Court and picked them out in the identification test conducted under the supervision of Naeem Iqbal, Special Magistrate, P.W.2 on 17-8-2005. He has described the crime committed by the appellants in great detail viz. That on 1-8-2005 at about 6-15 p.m. He had left the house in order to have his motorcycle repaired and when he reached near Liaqat Chowk the appellants in a white coloured Mehran Suzuki Car stopped him and abducted him at gun point. He was told by the appellants to call his father from his mobile phone and once the connection was established, one of the appellants came on the line and demanded a ransom of Rs,20 lacs for his release. On the third day the abductee was released after the appellants had received Rs,4 lacs delivered at a designated place by Afaq Ahmed and Zahid Taoqeer P.W.6. Nauman Ahmed P.W.5 on being released, as per instructions of the appellants, retrieved his motorcycle from the motorcycle stand of Social Security Hospital and reached home. Police arrived at the residence of Afaq Ahmed shortly thereafter.
Nauman Ahmed accompanied the police to the place from where he had been abducted and thereafter led the police to the house where he was kept by the appellants after abduction. This witness has steadfastly stood the test of cross-examination before the learned trial Court. Nauman Ahmed P.W.5 is corroborated by his father Afaq Ahmed, P.W.1 and Taoqeer, P.W.6 to the extent of demand of ransom by the appellants and delivery of Rs,4 lacs as per their instructions. Afaq Ahmed P.W.1 was not seriously cross-examined by the defence in view of a compromise having been effected between the parties. However, the fact remains that the statement made by the witness in his examination-in-chief was never challenged by the defence and no question or suggestion was put to the witness regarding the occurrence having not taken place. Further the defence has not controverted the payment of ransom by the said witness. Zahid Taoqeer P.W.6 has fully corroborated Afaq Ahmed regarding payment of ransom and the manner in which it was delivered to the appellants.
11. The question as to the validity and effect of a compromise having taken place between the parties has been answered by the learned trial Court which observed that the offence under section 7(e), A.T.A. Was not a compoundable offence and, therefore, the compromise was of no consequence. We subscribe to the view taken by the learned trial Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that no charge under section 7(e) of A.T.A., 1997 was framed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the appellants could not be convicted for the said offence, has no force as in the charge itself section 7(e) of A.T.A., 1997 stands duly mentioned. The other argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that Nauman Ahmed, the abductee was a friend of the accused and was himself involved in the abduction is also devoid of force. The abductee at the time of testifying before the learned trial Court was 17 years old whereas Abdul Z.Aheer was 33 years old and Muhammad Imtiaz was 35 years of age as mentioned in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The disparity in ages of the abductee and the appellants belies the defence plea that the abductee had developed friendship with the appellants. Further, the accused/appellants have not led any evidence at the trial to establish their friendship with the abductee or regarding the complicity of the abductee in the crime. The entire ransom amount was recovered from the appellants who were arrested by the police from the house in Allama Iqbal Town on the pointation of Nauman Ahmed. Moreover, Nauman Ahmed had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants in the case. Insofar as the matter regarding telephone calls made by Nauman to the appellants is concerned, Nauman has advanced a plausible explanation viz. That he had received missed calls on his mobile and had called back to check as to who had made the calls. The learned trial Court correctly held that suchlike crimes are committed with planning
12. Reverting to the identification of the appellants by the abductee, identification parade was held under the supervision of Naeem Iqbal, Special Judicial Magistrate, P.W.2 on 17-8-2005 at Camp Jail, Lahore. Through his evidence before the learned trial Court, the witness has established that Nauman Ahmed had identified the appellants which fact is fully borne out from the report of identification parade Exh.P.B. Duly signed by the said witness. No illegality or proceducal error appears to have been committed by the learned Magistrate in conducting the identification parade. Further the abductee identified the appellants before the learned trial Court as the accused who had abducted him.
13. Nasir Ahmed, 5.-I. P.W.7/Investigating Officer deposed that on 7-8-2005 he and his subordinates were led by the abductee to house No,181, Kamran Block, Allama Iqbal Town as the place where he had been kept by the appellants after his abduction. He was told by the Police Officer to leave whereafter the appellants were apprehended by the police from the house aforementioned. Pistol P.8 was recovered from the trousers of Abdul Zaheer appellant with four live cartridges P.9/1-4 and Rs,2 lacs were also recovered from the pocket of his trousers. Mobile phone P.2 belonging to the abductee was recovered from the pocket of his shirt. From Usman Ali appellant, pistol .30 bore P.10, three live cartridges P.11/1-3 Rs,l lac, currency notes P.3/1-100 were recovered which were taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh.D. From Imtiaz appellant a .30 bore pistol P.12, three live cartridges P.13/1-3 and Rs,1 lac in cash were recovered which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.G. Motorcycle P.5 was also taken into possession by the police from the garage of the house. The mobile phone P.2 was identified by the abductee belonging to him. The recoveries referred to above further connect the appellants with the crime committed by them.
Despite being subjected to lengthy cross- examination, no dent has been created by the defence in the testimony furnished by P.W.7 who has denied all suggestions regarding complicity of the abductee in the crime. Although the testimony of this witness to the extent of recoveries was questioned by the defence being in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. As he had failed tp associate any witness from the public with the recovery proceedings, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not possible for the Investigating G Officer to have joined persons from the public with the proceedings. Even otherwise, a police witness is as good a witness as any other as has been held by the Honourable apex Court in a number of cases. The recoveries, therefore, stand proved against the appellants and lend corroboration to the evidence furnished by the witnesses. Even if the recoveries had not been proved, in a case of kidnapping/abduction for ransom, the determining factor is the object behind the crime. Reliance is placed on the case of the State v. Farman Hussain PLD 1991 SC 1.
14. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the learned trial @court had appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and had rightly convicted the appellants.
Therefore, we maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. The appeals stand dismissed.