' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.-- Criminal Appeal No,346 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No,347 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No,348 of 2005, all by leave of this Court, are directed against judgment dated 28-8-2003 handed down by learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi, in case F.I.R.No,181, dated 30-10-2002, registered at Police Station Taimuria Karachi, whereby the conviction of the appellants under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Recorded by the learned trial Court was upheld; death sentences inflicted upon Abdul Adeel and Sohail Ahmed Commando alias Ehsan Ali Shah appellants were maintained and confirmed, however, the death sentence inflicted upon Mst.
Masoom Bano alias Huma Jafri was not confirmed and was reduced to imprisonment of life. The appeal of the convicts was dismissed. These appeals are being decided by this consolidated judgment.
2. Appellants Abdul Adeel, Sohail Ahmed, Mst. Masoom Bano and Noman Iqbal faced trial in the instant case, while co-accused Khalid alias Gudo, Waqar alias Wiki and Abdul Faheem obsconder were declared proclaimed offenders. The case of Noman Iqbal was later on separated, as he was Juvenile, being 17 years old. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life through a separate judgment by the learned trial Court, however, his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted by the learned High Court.
3. The relevant facts are that Raees Ahmed (P.W.1) father of abductee Saeed Ahmed P.W.5, lived along with his family in M. Block of North Naziamabad, Karachi. He was employed as Printing Master in Mustaqeem Dying and Printing Mill S.I.T.E. Karachi. On 28-10-2002, at about 4 p.m., while he was on duty, he was informed by his wife over telephone that their son, Saeed who was 13 years old, left the house at 1-30 p.m., did not return' Raees left for his house immediately and started searching for his son, without any clue. On 29-10-2002 at about 5-15 p.m., he received a telephone call, at his residence, that his son was being detained by the un-identified caller and if he wanted release of his son, he should arrange for a huge amount, and wait for the next call. Thereafter, at about 12-15 a.m. During night on 30-10-2002, Raees went to the Police Station and reported the matter.
4. During trial, Raees Ahmed made certain improvements and also narrated details after the recovery of his son. As against F.I.R., he added that his wife had received telephone call, at 2-30 p.m., on 28-10-2002 by an unknown person who talked about abduction of their son and had threatened her that she should not inform the police. He further stated that he went to Police Station Taimuria in the evening, informed the police about missing of his son but did not lodge F.I.R.
He was referred to Mr. Murad Soni, Incharge C.P'L.C., Police Station Gulberg, the later equipped the telephone of Raees Ahmed with the facility of C.L.I. Forthwith and put the telephone under surveillance. So the call made on 29-10-2002 was traced to have been made from Cell Phone No,0097142621363. According to him, during investigation on 3-10-2002, it transpired that abduction of Saeed was witnessed by one Shahab Siddiqui not produced. On 30-10-2002 at. About 2-15 a.m.
The complainant received another call which was made through Cell Phone No,0097-142628331, the caller was the same person who had earlier called. The caller enquired about arrangement of ransom and threatened to kill Saeed if the ransom amount was not paid. On the same day i,e, 30- 10-2002 at about 11 p.m. Murad Soni, Incharge C.P.L.C' Police Station Gulberg called the complainant and informed him that his son had been secured and was with him. The complainant along with two other rushed to the Police Station and brought his son back. The statement of the abductee was recorded on the next date i,e, 31-10-2002 in the evening, at his house, by S.I.P. Azam Rana P.W.7.
Saeed Ahmed P.W.5-abductee stated that he left his house on the fateful day at about 1230 p.m.
And met Noman accused who asked Saeed to accompany him to purchase fire crackers. While Noman and Saeed were on the road leading to the last Bus .Stop of 2-K Route, a white corolla car arrived, its rear door was opened, the accused pulled Saeed inside the car, while Noman pushed the abductee inside the car. The accused who were inside the car and were duly identified by the abductee, removed the abductee to a house, where he was detained. On the asking of the accused, the abductee gave his Telephone No,6649444. The hands and feet of the abductee were tied and the tape was put on the mouth of the abductee. During the course of captivity, the accused subjected to torture. It was specifically mentioned by Saeed abductee that Adeel appellant gave a blow on his nose which caused swelling. The witness further stated that he was kept in custody for two days and Noman accused was also detained for that period in a different room. After two days at about 10-30 or 11-00 p.m. The appellants forced the abductee and Noman to board a Hi-Roof Van. Thereafter they were taken to a deserted place and were directed to leave the van' At that time, the hands of the abductee as well as the hands of Noman Iqbal were tied with electric wire. After the appellants left the abductee and Noman Iqbal got their hands un-tied by a passerby, they took a rickshaw and went to the house of Noman Iqbal after sometime the police party reached the house of Noman Iqbal and brought the abductee at police station where he was joined by his father and other relatives. Then Saeed abductee accompanied his father to his house and his statement was recorded on the following day at the evening time. The appellants were arrested on 8-11-2002.
5. On 16-11-2002, Abdul Adeel and Sohail appellants were duly identified by the .Abductee during .The identification test conducted by Magistrate Jahangir P.W.3. However, no identification test qua Masoom Bano appellant was held. P.W.2 Umar Hayat A.S.-I. Stated about the registration of the case. P.W.4 Ghulam Hussain Korai Inspector stated about partial investigation of the case. He also stated about the arrest of the appellants on the basis of information furnished by Noman Iqbal who was in custody. He also identified the appellants while they were present in Court. Dr. Farasat Khan appeared as P.W.6 and stated that he examined Saeed abductee on 3140-2002 at about 11-15 p.m.
He observed following injuries on the person of Saeed Ahmed:--- "(1) Multiple contusions ranging from 3 c.m. x 0.25 c.m. To 15 c.m. x 1 c.m. Over the right and left forearm and arms at the back in the lumbo-sacral region and right and left buttocks.
(2) Diffus swelling over the nasal bridge.
(3) Abrasion 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. Over the left arm."
' The injuries were fresh and were caused by blunt substance. Thereafter he examined Noman Iqbal and observed one injury consisting of multiple contusion on right and left forearms and back at lumbosacrat region. This injury was also caused by a hard and blunt substance. Muhammad Azam Rana, S.I.P. P.W.7 stated about the recovery of a mobile telephone set and visiting card of Tehrik-e- Insaf Party and cash Rs,400 from the possession of Mst. Masoom Bano and recovery of mobile telephone set from the possession of Sohail appellant. He further stated about the recovery of Suzuki Hi-Roof at the time of apprehension of Abdul Adeel appellant. He further stated that Saleem Iqbal father of Noman Iqbal informed Murad Soni Incharge of C.P.L.C. About the presence of Saeed Ahmad and Noman Iqbal in his house who later on passed the information to Ghulam Hussain Korai and thereafter P.W.7 and Ghulam Hussain Korai went to the house of Saleem Iqbal and recovered Saeed Ahmed.
6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of appellants were recorded who pleaded innocence. Sohail appellant stated that he was involved in the case as he was active member of MQM while Adeel appellant stated that he was involved in the case falsely by the police as his father refused to pay bribe to the police. Mst. Masoom Bano appellant stated that she was roped in a false case by Ghulam Hussain Korai Inspector who was annoyed with her.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that Shahab Ahmed Siddiqui sole eye-witness of the case was not produced during trial; that the identification parade was of no value as the appellants were arrested on 8-11-2002 and were kept at police station till 11-11-2002 and were not produced before any Magistrate during that period. Thus (i) their detention during that period was illegal and (ii) they were shown to the abductee during their detention at police station. The learned counsel further argued that complainant of the case made deliberate and dishonest improvements before the learned trial Court and the statement of Saeed Ahmed was not reliable; that there were material discrepancies in the statements of abductee and the complainant.
According to the learned counsel, Noman Iqbal and Saeed abductee had left their house due to their own and subsequently the appellants were roped in a false case. Lastly it was argued that abduction for ransom was not proved at all.
8. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that the witnesses were independent and had no previous enmity or against the appellants so as to depose against them falsely and that the detention of the appellants at Police Station after arrest was explained by the fact that 9th and 10th of November were holidays being Iqbal day and Sunday; that the appellants except Mst. Masoom Bano were identified during the identification test and that Mst. Masoom Bano was also identified by the P. Ws. Were corroborated by the recovery evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case. Saeed Ahmed-abductee P.W.5 is star witness of the case. At the time of abduction, he was a boy of 13 years of age and was student of class 5th. He has given very candid and trustworthy statement. He had no previous or grievance against the appellants so as to depose falsely against them. As far as identification of the appellants is concerned, he remained in the custody of the appellants for two days. It is not the case of the appellants that during the captivity of the abductee the appellants had muffled their faces, so the abductee could easily identify the culprits on seeing them later. During trial, abductee identified each of the appellants and also stated about the specific role played by the appellants, so no doubt is left as far as identification of the appellants is concerned. The statement of Saeed Ahmed is also supported by medical evidence and circumstances of the case. As far as abduction of Saeed Ahmed is concerned, the same is also corroborated by the statement of Raees Ahmed P.W.1. He has duly explained, why the case was not registered on the day of abduction.
10. In the above-noted circumstances, the abduction and detention of Saeed Ahmed at secret place is proved to the hilt. Having coming to that conclusion, we have given our serious thought to the motive narrated by P.W.1. According to P.W.1, he received two telephone calls by unidentified person for arranging ransom. However, how much ransom was to be arranged, was not mentioned in the F.I.R. At all, neither any ransom was paid for the release of the abductee. Saeed Ahmed abductee has not stated before the trial Court that the appellants demanded ransom from his father. According to him, he and Noman Iqbal accused were released and dropped at a deserted place after two days of captivity. He further stated that after the release he accompanied Noman Iqbal to his house and it was the father of Noman Iqbal who informed the police about the presence of abductee in his house. There is no hint in the statement of Saeed Ahmed that the appellants had demanded ransom. Though two cell phones were shown to have been recovered from the possession of the appellants but there is no evidence on record that they C were used by the appellants for demanding ransom. The statement of Raees Ahmed P.W.1 is not supported by any other corroboratory D evidence. It is settled law that benefit of all doubts is to be given to the accused.
11. In the above-noted circumstances, in our considered view, the prosecution failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. However, as noted above, it stood proved that Saeed Ahmed was abducted and was kept under detention at secret place.
12. For all what has been said above, we alter the conviction of the appellants from offence under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. To offence under section 365/34, P.P.C. The appellants are in jail for more than six years, so their sentences are reduced to the period already served out by them in jail. This appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgments are modified accordingly. These are the reasons of our short order of even dated.