1. ' SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---The appellant Muhammad Ali has filed this Appeal against the judgment dated 28-11-2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Karachi, in Special Case No,94 / 2008 (State v. Muhammad Ali), arising out of the Crime No,591 / 2008, lodged with PS Ferozabad, Karachi under section 365-A P.P.C., and Special Case No,93/2008 (State v. Muhammad Ali) based on Crime No,44/ 2008, lodged with PS Soldier Bazar, Karachi under section 13-D Arms Ordinance, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant to suffer life imprisonment and forfeiture of his property under section 365-A P.P.C. And section 6(2)(e) read with section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and also sentenced him to suffer R.I. For seven years under section 13-D Arms Ordinance. Both the sentences were to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. ' The facts, giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that while one Ali Zuhair, aged about 12 years, was on his way to the swimming pool, K.M.C. Kashmir Road, Karachi, on 19-6-2008 at about 7.45 a.m. As a matter of daily routine, the appellant kidnapped him for ransom of Rs,3 crore, by having intercepted and caused him to sit in his white Toyota Corolla car bearing Registration No,ACP-129 near his residence bearing Flat No,B-8, Plot No,162-F, Block-3, PECHS, Karachi at Kashmir Road, Karachi under a serious threat to his life. The appellant snatched the mobile phone of the kidnappee and obtained phone number of his father namely, Arif, the complainant and made phone call to him, informing of his aforesaid act of kidnapping for ransom and placing such demand as well. The father of the victim contacted CPLC people of New Town, Karachi, who got recorded the telephone calls of the appellant and simultaneously informed the police of the facts of the incident and thereby took the police in confidence. The police later took down the statement of the father under section 154, Cr.P.C. And registered the F.I.R. Against the unknown culprit(s). Lastly, on telephonic conversation, the ransom amount stood reduced to Rs,1.5 crore, and as per the direction of the appellant, the father went to deliver the same to the appellant for release of his son to the pin-pointed place, i.e, Parsi Colony, Soldier Bazar, Karachi, at 1630 hours.
3. The police also accompanied him in such pursuit. They, however, found the said vehicle available over there with young driver who when got apprehended, on their part, disclosed to them, his name as Muhammad Ali son of Sabir Ali and admitted to have kidnapped the boy, who then was found as confined in the dickey of the car, at the same time. The police also secured one T.T. Pistol with five live bullets, from the possession of the appellant, together with one mobile phone No,0344- 2637860 with IMEI No 35998600259862-22, NIC and cash of Rs,200 under a memo. Prepared to such effect, before the Mashirs, namely, Asif and A.S.-I Faiz. The police booked the appellant in the said crime and in another crime bearing F.I.R. No,44/2008 lodged with P.S. Soldier Bazar, Karachi for the offence under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, After the investigation had stood completed by the Police, the appellant was charge sheeted before the Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Karachi. The same was tried as Special Case No,94-2008 (State v. Muhammad Ali) and concluded by way of the impugned judgment accordingly.
4. ' Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Assistant Prosecutor General and perused the record carefully, this Court by its short order dated 20-4-2010 disposed of the appeal in the terms that the impugned judgment as to the conviction and sentence under section 365-A, P.P.C.
5. Was upheld whereas the conviction and sentence awarded under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, was set aside, for the reasons to be recorded later on.
6. The evidence led by the prosecution includes the statement of the boy/abductee who is a principal victim of the crime and has given a very comprehensive account of the incident, which is reproduced here in below:-- "On 19-6-2008 as usual I was going to the swimming pool for swimming as I am member of the swimming pool. At about 7.45 a.m. While going to swimming pool I reached Darul Sakoon one Toyota Corolla white colour came from back side. Thereafter the accused present in the Court issued threat and abducted me and made me to sit by his side and then took me to an isolated place. Thereafter he inquired my name so also my father and then obtained mobile phone number of my father. He then talked with my father and demanded Rs,3 crore and issued threats and then he made me talk with my father. I informed my father that he had taken me and would demand something from you and what else, in the meanwhile he snatched mobile phone from me.
7. Thereafter he told my father to make arrangements for my release and then he tied up my hands with the tape and confined me in the dickey. Thereafter the accused went on driving the car and also supplied some water a Pepsi to drink and small pizza costing Rs,10 or 15. He then talked with my father and I was listening the conversation. At one place he stopped the car and then I told him to drive the car because I was feeling suffocation or he should make me inside the car, he then started gari/car. Thereafter he stopped at one place where the police and CPLC people caught hold of him. Thereafter the police inquired if he was the same person who had abducted me to which I replied in affirmative and then I came to know that he was Muhammad Ali. Thereafter I went CPLC office along with all, where I got my statement recorded. Thereafter at 8.30 p.m. Myself, my father, my chachoo and Nawaz uncle went to the place from where I was abducted and then Nawaz uncle did such writing work. Thereafter staying at AVCC office for sometime we went to our residence. I see memo Exh.6-A and say that it is the same and bears my signature."
8. ' It is pertinent to point out that the cross examination conducted by the defence against the witness could not shatter his evidence. The same could not even show any specific defence plea on the basis of which one could assume that the witness has been challenged thereby in such process of evidence or he deposed falsely against the appellant for any ill motive or vested interest either within himself or because of his family. Other witnesses are the father and uncle of the victim. They also supported the case to the effect that the boy went to the swimming pool as a matter of routine on the given date and time, with the aforesaid mobile phone, he was intercepted and kidnapped for ransom, under serious threat to his life, by the unknown culprit(s) who later appeared to be the appellant who had made phone calls to the father the complainant repeatedly, from the said phone set of the kidnappeee, and thereby demanded Rs,3 crores, as ransom money for his safe release, to his family, and finally, reduced the same to Rs,1.5 crores; the victim's father contacted the CPLC, he called for his real brother the witness Asif, for moral and physical help, he registered the F.I.R. In the matter; he with the help of CPLC, recorded the phone calls of the culprit, and then visited the place pinpointed by the appellant for his completion of criminal transaction, where he got apprehended and the abductee stood recovered under the memo. To such effect. The abductee also categorically stated to have informed the police on the spot immediate after his recovery from the dickey of the said car, that he had been kidnapped by the appellant for ransom and he remained confined in dickey with tied hands for the intervening period during which, he heard the appellant's phone calls conversations referred to above. The other witnesses named above also corroborated the said facts in the same manner and the cross examination conducted against them each, could not bring any fruitful result to the defence. The defence theory that came to light, for the first time, in the process of cross examination that there had been a business rivalry between the brother in law of the complainant and the appellant, due to which, the appellant has falsely been involved in this case, being after-thought, is good for nothing. The rest of the witnesses, are official ones who too, have supported the case to their respective extent and their evidence is also left un-shattered in the cross examination conducted by the defence against them each on the point of kidnapping reported against. It is, however, pointed out that as usual, police seems to have committed certain irregularities in the process of investigation but since the ocular testimony as discussed above, is of such a solid nature that the said lapses and variation appearing in the record, can hardly have an adverse effect to the extent that on the basis of which, the Court may take an independent view that the case of prosecution as to kidnapping, is doubtful and that the evidence of the complainant, his brother and the abductee in particular, are open to be ignored and kept out of consideration. In other words, we are of the considered opinion that the private P.Ws. Are trustworthy and confidence inspiring in all respects and that the charge of kidnapping for reason as framed against the B appellant, in the matter, stands well proved beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt and thus, his conviction and sentence need no interference at all. We are, however, of the view that the case regarding the recovery of the said TT pistol is not open to be safely held as proved up to the required standard of law and such finding too, is hereby based on the independent ocular testimony in question, which does not support that the said weapon was recovered by the police from the appellant at the relevant time, before them or in their presence, since they all deposed to have been so informed by the police later and thus they all did not corroborate the recovery of the said weapon and the case of the prosecution to that extent and hence being of independent nature in the case, throughout, their evidence carry weight for all practical purposes, as a matter of fairness and justice.
9. ' Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and maintain the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded under section 365-A, P.P.C. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence B given to the appellant for the offence of section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, in the interest of justice.
10. ' Above are the reasons for the short order dated 20-4-2010.