' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals No,365 to 367 of 2008 as they arise out of a common judgment.
2. The present appeals, by leave of the Court, are directed against the judgment dated 27-6-2008, passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindli at Karachi, by which the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellants by the leame Anti-Terrorism Court-V, Karachi for committing the offence punishable under section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to the Act) read with section 365-A, P.P.C. With order to forfeit the property of the appellants to the tune of Rs,1,00,000 each and for offence punishable under section 6(1)(b) of the Act and sentence of five years and fine of Rs,10,000 each were maintained.
3. The facts of the case are that on 18-2-2007 at about 10.30 p.m. The victim Ali Akbar left his house in his Car bearing No,AKE-952 to receive his friend namely Zeeshan Siddiqui at Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi. After receiving his friend, they went to see maternal uncle of Zeeshan Siddiqui at Ashrafia Dargah Super Highway Northern By-pass, Karachi. After visiting him they were going back to the house of the victim Ali Akbar and when they reached Sherwani Hyundai Motors, Super Highway, a Car bearing No,ALS-609 Black colour intercepted them. In the said car four persons were sitting, out of them, two came and told the victim that he was called by his Sahib, who was sitting in the car. The victim Ali Akbar went there but he was forcibly made to sit in the car by the said persons, who were armed with weapons. P.W. Zeeshan Siddiqui was sitting in the car and after their departure, he informed the complainant Saifuddin (P.W.9) about the incident. On the same date from the Cell Phone of the victim bearing No,0321-2395201 a call was made to the complainant in which it was demanded that the victim Ali Akbar would be released after the payment of Rupees Two Crores (Rs,20,000,000) as ransom. In the meantime, the complainant informed the C.P.L.C., Police, negotiations between the culprits and the complainant continued and at last, it was agreed at Rs,470,000, which was to be paid to the culprits at Islamabad International Airport. On the directions of the culprits, the complainant went to Islamabad to give the amount to the person who was subsequently identified as the appellant Shiraz-ul-Haq and then returned to Karachi. On the next day viz. 21 2-20007 the victim Akbar Ali was released.
4. After the release, the victim narrated the incident that after the culprits had forcibly put him in the car they took him to a house where he was detained. He further stated that the person, who was sitting on the front passenger seat, was wearing police uniform having the rank of A.S.-I. And the other persons wearing Police Caps. They took out Rs,6,000 from his pocket, Bank Credit and Debited Cards as well as Nokia Mobile Phone No,0321-2395201. He further stated that the appellant Qari Ghulam Yasin and Shiraz-ul-Haq were the persons who abducted him from the Super Highway whereas the appellant Sheraz Ahmed was driving the car and the person who was in police uniform was not present in the Court. On his inquiry, the appellants told him that he was abducted for ransom. The appellants also obtained Pin Code of his Cards by putting weapons on his head. Two persons kept on watching him for a day and two nights whereas the acquitted accused Khawaja Muhammad was the person, who was providing him meal. The accused, who was in police uniform, was talking to his father from his cell phone. On 21-2-2007 at about 10.00 p.m.
They released him and thereafter he contacted his father who came and took him to the house. His father, the complainant, informed him that he had paid Rs,470,000 as ransom at Islamabad for his release. On 8-3-2007 he had identified the appellants in an identification test held before a Magistrate.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The appellants denied all the allegations of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. They neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. The learned Anti-Terrorism Court after considering the evidence acquitted the co-accused Khawaja Muhammad and convicted the appellants for the offences, as mentioned above, under the judgment dated 13-9-2007. The appeal of the appellants failed as the same was dismissed as mentioned above.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Prosecutor for State and perused the record very carefully. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that he is not challenging the conviction and factual aspect of the case but has requested for reduction of sentence on the ground that evidence of the prosecution witnesses qua the acquitted accused Khawaja Muhammad was disbelieved though his case was also similar to the case of the appellants and that the allegation that the appellants used the Credit and debited Cards and took off Lacs of Rupees has not been proved as such a doubt has been created. He has relied upon Ansar Ahmed Khan Barki v. State 1993 SCM R 1660. Learned State Prosecutor has stated that the case has been proved against the appellants and that the case of the acquitted accused is distinguishable from the case of the present appellants, therefore, their sentence may not be reduced.
7. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made and reappraised the evidence to satisfy ourselves about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. We find that the victim Ali Akbar has fully supported the prosecution case and gave the details of his abduction. He was subjected to cross-examination but the defence could not shake his evidence. His cross-examination reveals that the defence put multiple questions to obtain some clarifications but no serious efforts were made to challenge the actual incident of abduction. The statement of the complainant (P. W.9) fully establishes the fact of abduction and delivery of ransom amount to the appellant Shiraz-ul- Haq. He gave details of such payment as he was directed to bring the money to Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi where he was further directed to board PIA plane to reach Islamabad and he was asked to make payment to a particular person which he did then he returned to Karachi on the same night where he received a telephone call from the culprits that the victim would be released on the next day and as per such program the victim was released. Thus the question of abduction has been fully supported and corroborated by the witnesses. Finding this overwhelming evidence of the prosecution on the above points, the learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction but has requested for the reduction in the sentence.
8. We have given due consideration to the question of reduction of sentence and find that the acquitted accused Khawaja Muhammad was released though allegation against him was that he was providing meal to the victim at the place of his detention. Thus it appears that he was involved in the case but the learned trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him. The finding of acquittal was accepted by the prosecution, as they did not prefer any appeal to challenge his acquittal. The prosecution alleged that incident of abduction was witnessed by P.W. Zeeshan Siddiqui t he has not been examined as such on this aspect of the case there is evidence of victim only. The ransom amount has not been recovered from the appellants. Furthermore, the prosecution alleged that the culprits had used the Credit and Debited Cards and lacs of rupees were taken out from the account of the victim but no cogent evidence through any Bank official has been produced to prove such allegation. The confinement of the victim is of two days only with no allegation of A torture. In the case of Ansar Ahmed Khan Barki v. State 1993 SCMR 1669 this Court observed that the accused who had succeeded in casting some doubt on the version of prosecution case was entitled to its benefit in matter of sentence. This Court in the case of Qasim v. State 1999 SCM R 2841 maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life by not finding any irregularity or legal infirmity in awarding such sentence by Courts below when 5 dacoits abducted 2 persons and released them after seven days of receiving ransom amount. In the case of State v. Nazir Ahmed 1999 SCM R 610 seven accused abducted a boy of 16 years and after receiving ransom amount of Rs,3,00,000, which was secured from one of the accused and the trial Court awarded maximum sentence of life imprisonment (before amendment through Ordinance XIV of 1990). Two accused were acquitted.
The learned High Court, in appeal, acquitted the accused. The State preferred appeal before this Court. The Court allowed the appeal in respect of Nazir Ahmed as he was only present before the Court because the other accused were either dead or absconders. The allegation against the accused was of abduction, receiving ransom amount and its recovery as clear from para 21 of the said judgment. The Court observed that the case was of no such where maximum sentence should be awarded.
9. Keeping in view the above decisions, we are of the view that this is not an extreme case of abduction, therefore, in such a, case the sentence of death to three persons appears to be harsh one. Hence we reduce the sentence of the appellants from death to imprisonment for life. With the said modification in the sentence, the appeals are dismisses.