' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---Criminal Petition bearing No,63-K of 2007 filed by Ahmad Hussain alias Ami and Criminal Jail Petition No,91 of 2007 jointly filed by Abdul Jabbar alias Kamran and Shahzad Ali (hereinafter called the petitioners), along with Criminal Petitions No,64-K to 66-K of 2007 filed by the State for enhancement of their sentence arising out of the judgment dated 7-4- 2007, rendered by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, in criminal appeals filed by the petitioners against the sentence of death with confiscation of their property, awarded to them, on conviction under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by the Special Court established thereunder at Karachi, whereby the appeals were dismissed with conversion of sentence of death into life imprisonment.
2. The short facts in the background are that Fayyaz Muzaffar lodged report at Police Station Defence, Clifton Town, Karachi, on 6-6-2003 at 7-45 p.m. To the effect that on 5-6-2003 at 11-45 p.m. His brother Muhammad Bilal Shahzad, having gone to a video shop at Boat Basin in his car did not return and his family members have serious apprehension of his abduction by unknown persons. Later the culprits having made telephonic calls demanded payment of Rs,50,00,000 as ransom for release of abductee and the conversation of accused with the family members of the abductee, was also recorded by the police. Ultimately in consequence to the negotiations of the family members of the abductee with the culprits, an amount of Rs,4,50,000 was paid by Imran Ejaz (P.W.-2), cousin of the victim and Syed Muzaffar Shodatat Najmi (P.W.5), his father, to the accused in Aladin Park, Karachi, as ransom for release of the victim. The identification parade of the two petitioners namely Shahzad Ali and Abdul Jabbar was held on their arrest in the supervision of a Magistrate in jail on 11-9-2003 in which they were properly identified by Muhammad Bilal Shahzad, who was abducted by them with the help of their companions, on gun point from Boat Basin whereupon Ahmed Hussain alias Ami, petitioner, was identified by him in Court as the one who used to serve him food, while in custody with the accused. The evidence of Imran Ejaz (P.W.2) and Syed Muzaffar Shoukat (P.W.5) was confined to the extent of payment of amount of Rs,4,50,000 as ransom money to the accused whereas Syed Muhammad Bilal Shahzad (P.W.1) having narrated the occurrence of his abduction, proved the identification of the petitioners as culprits. The abductee describing the incident in each detail, stated that he travelled with the accused in the car for about 40/45 minutes and thereafter he was handed over to another group of 4/5 persons who confined him in a room for 7 days and during this period, Ahmed Hussain alias Ami, petitioner, used to serve him with food and then on 12-6-2003 he was brought out of the room in which he was detained, in blind folded condition and was dropped by the accused near Mazar-e-Quaid-e- Azam.
3. Learned trial Judge after detail scrutiny of the evidence, having found the petitioners guilty of the charge, awarded them sentence of death whereas the High Court in appeal while maintaining the conviction, converted their sentence into life imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, namely Ahmed Hussain alias Ami, has contended that as per prosecution story, the petitioner did not play any other role in the alleged occurrence of abduction for ransom except that he was deputed to serve the food to the abductee during his custody with the accused and the possibility of his having been engaged as private employee by the accused being not rule out, he could not be held guilty of the charge in absence of any other evidence direct or circumstantial, connecting him with the commission of offence. It has been forcefully asserted by the learned counsel that mere an act of serving the food to the abductee would not be considered an incriminating evidence to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and that his identity in the Court as associate of abductors, who was not previously known to the abductee, would be of no significance. In nutshell, learned counsel submitted that besides the statement of two witnesses named above and victim, no other evidence was brought on record to connect Ahmed Hussain alias Ami with the crime and further the evidence against the remaining two petitioners was also insufficient to hold them guilty of the charge. The petitioners in jail petition No,91 of 2007 are not represented and we, with the help of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, learned ASC counsel in the connected Petition No,63-K of 2007, have examined the question of legality or otherwise of the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners and concurrent finding qua their guilt arrived at by the two Courts. The learned Addl. A.-G. Sindh has opposed this petition with the assertion that the concurrent findings of two Courts regarding guilt of the petitioners being based on sound reasons, is not suffering from any legal defect calling for interference of this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate- General, Sindh, at length and having perused the record with their assistance, have found that the abductee in his statement in the examination in chief, has categorically stated that Shahzad Ali and Abdul Jabbar, petitioners abducted him in a car from Boat Basin whereas Ahmed Hussain alias Ami, petitioner used to visit the place of his detention to provide him food and they all were active members of the gang of culprits. Learned counsel for Ahmed Hussain, petitioner, when confronted that the above portion of the statement of abductee was not challenged by the defence and so much so, no suggestion was put to him in the cross-examination that petitioner was not an active partner of the accused. The law is that if a person subsequently associates himself with the accused in the crime, he may have same liability and learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that Ahmed Hussain petitioner was not privy to the crime. In the light of the circumstances leading to the occurrence and the subsequent events, an inference could safely be drawn that the petitioners having participated in the crime, have incurred equal responsibility of commission of the offence.
6. In consequence to the above discussion, we do not find any substance in these two connected petitions bearing No,63-K of 2007 filed by Ahmed Hussain alias Ami and Criminal Petition No,91-K of 2007 filed by Abdul Jabbar alias Kamran and Shahzad Ali which are accordingly dismissed.
7. The State has filed Criminal Petitions No,64-K to 66-K of 2007 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court to the extent of alteration of sentence of death awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court into the life imprisonment by the High Court. In support of these petitions, learned Addl. AG Sindh submitted that no doubt the maximum sentence provided under section 365-A, P.P.0 is the life imprisonment whereas under section 7(e) of ATA 1997, the sentence of death or life imprisonment is provided for an offence of kidnapping and forfeiture of property but in the present case, there was no valid reason and mitigating circumstance to withhold the maximum sentence provided under section 7(e) of ATA 1997.
8. We having considered the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate-general, have not been able to find out any substance in these petitions for enhancement of sentence as notwithstanding the difference in the quantum of punishment provided under section 365-A, P.P.0 and section 7(e) ATA 1997, the nature of offence under both these provisions is substantially same and consequently in absence of a very strong reason, we are not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of sentence.
9. In the light of foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in all these five connected petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed Leave is refused.