ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. -- The facts of this case are quite long and the details of the same !find elaborate mention in the judgments handed down by the learned Courts below but the long and short of such facts is that at about 03.15 p.m. on 11.06,2004 one Ahmad Naeem was abducted from near the outer gate of his Bungalow No, 12-E, Gizri Strebt, DHA Phase-IV, Karachi and in the ensuing over two months he was confined in a house land negotiations were held on behalf of the culprits with! the abductee's father namely Muhammad Naeem for release of the abductee upon payment of ransom. Initially the amount of ransom demanded was Rupees five Crores 'l- but subsequently the matter was settled at about Rupees sixty- one lacs which were statedly delivered in the shape of Pounds Sterling fifty-six thousand to the culprits through an intermediary in the United Kingdom and that led to release of the abductee on 12.08.2004. F.I.R. No, 93 was lodged at Police Station Gizri, District Clifton Town, Karachi in respect of the above-mentioned incident of abduction at about 05.00 p.m. on 11.06.2004 by Muhammad Iqbal complainant who was .the driver of the abductee.
During the investigation of this case by the local police Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa.
Khalid Aziz, Junaid Rehman Ansari, Qurban Ali Khoso and Fida Hussain Khoso were arrested, identification parades were different , recoveries was effected and upon completion! of the investigation a Challan was submitted before the learned Trial Court which framed a charge against the said accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. Upon conclusion of the trial the. learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No, V, Karachi Division, Karachi convicted all the accused persons! for offences under Section 365-A, PPC read with Section; 34, PPC, Section 344, PPC read with Section 34, PPC and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 w'cte judgment dated 04.02.2005 and sentenced them as under:-- "(a) For offence of abduction for ransom, punishable u/s. 365-A r/w 34, PPC, all the present accused Fida Hussain Khoso son of Nadir Hussain Khoso, Junaid Rehman son of Abdul Rehman Ansari, Qurban Ali Khoso son of Himmat Ali Khoso, Abdul Rasheed son of Pehlwan, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa son of Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Aziz son of Abdul Aziz are awarded death sentence and each of them is ordered to be hanged by neck till their death and their properties are ordered to be forfeited to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) each, to the Government;
(b) For offence of wrongfully confining the abductee Ahmed Naeem for 62 days, an offence punishable u/s. 344 r/w 34, PPC, all the present accused Fida Hussain Khoso son of Nadir Hussain Khoso, Junaid Rehman son of Abdul Rehman Ansari, Qurban Ali Khoso son of Himmat Ali Khoso, Abdul Rasheed son of Pehlwan, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa son of Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Aziz son of Abdul Aziz are awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years each and to pay fine of Rs, 50,000/- (fifty thousand) each or in default to pay fine, to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months each;
(c) For the offence of kidnapping of the abdubtee Ahmed Naeem for ransom, keeping him hostage for 62 days, charging ransom of Rs, 000/- (sixty one lac) equivalent to 56000 Pounds Sterling and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s. 7(e) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, all the present accused persons Fida Hussain Khoso son of Nadir Hussain Khoso, Junaid Rehman son of Abdul Rehman Ansari, Qurban Ali Khoso son of Himmat Ali Khoso, Abdul Rasheed son of Pehlwan, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa son of Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Aziz son of Abdul Aziz are awarded death sentence. Each of them is ordered to be hanged by neck till their death and their properties to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/- each are liable to be forfeited to the Government; (d)All the present accused Fida Hussain Khoso son of Nadir Hussain Khoso, Junaid Rehman son of Abdul Rehman Ansari, Qurban Ali Khoso son of Himmat Ali Khoso. Abdul Rasheed son of Pehlwan, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa son of Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Aziz son of Abdul Aziz are also directed to pay an amount of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) each to the victim/abductee as compensation on account of the mental anguish suffered by him during 62 days.of his captivity, as provided under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
' The punishment of death sentence awarded to the accused persons is subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court as provided under Section 376, Cr.P.C.
' Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, is, however, extended to the accused persons and: the sentences awarded to the accused persons are ordered to run concurrently.
The amount of fine, if paid, be deposited in the Government treasury."
2. The convicts mentioned above preferred different appeals before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi which appeals were heard by a learned Division Bench of the said Court alongwith Confirmation Case No, 03 of 2005 and vide judgment dated 27.01.2007 Fida Muhammad Khoso accused was acquitted of the charge but the appeals filed by the remaining convicts were dismissed with the following modifications in their convictions and sentences:-- "Appellant Qurban AN, Junaid Rehman, Khalid Aziz, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa and Abdul Rasheed are convicted for offence punishable under Section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Section 365-A, Cr.P.C, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Their movable and immovable properties to the extent of Rs, 1,00,000/- each are confiscated to Government. They are directed to pay compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/- each to the abductees, as provided under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C, or in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
' Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Qourt granted on 20.10.2008 which appeals have been filed by the convicts against their convictions and sentences and by the State against the acquittal of Fida Hussain Khoso accused and seeking enhancement of the sentences passed against the convicts.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have (gone through the record of this case with their assistance. After arguing their cases on different aspects of this cafee at some length all the learned counsel representing the all convicts/appellants have unanimously submitted before us that the convicts/appellants do not wish to challenge the finding of their guilt recorded and upheld by the learned Courts below as far as the allegation regarding abduction of Ahmad Naeem is concerned and they only maintain that in the case in hand the provisions of Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read With Section 365-A, PPC did not stand5 attracted as no adequate and satisfactory proof had been produced by the prosecution in respect of demand and payment of ransom for release of the abductee. They have, thus, submitted before us in unison that: the conviction of the convicts/appellants in respect of the offence under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Section 365-A, PPC may be set aside and instead the convicts/appellants may be convicted and sentenced only for an offence under Section 365, PPC.
Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Senior ASC appearing for Junaid Rehman Ansari convict/appellant has addressed the main arguments before us and the thrust of his arguments has been that the prosecution had failed to prove that the purpose of abduction of Ahmad Naeem was to extract ransom and that the entire evidence produced by the prosecution regarding payment of ransom for release of the abductee had been discarded by the High Court. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Senior ASC has represented Qurban Ali Khoso convict/appellant and his main submission has been that the prosecution had failed to establish that the said convict/appellant had acted in complicity with the other convicts/appellants in the matter. Mr. Khadim Nadeem Malik, ASC representing Abdul Rasheed convict/appellant has pointed out that the signatures of Ahmad Naeem abductee on the letter (Exhibit- 19) were different from his signatures on some other documents available on the record and, thus, the said letter had no evidentiary value as far as the question of demand of ransom was concerned. Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, ASC appearing for Mahammad Atiq Bajwa and Khalid Aziz convicts/appellants at the State expense has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel representing the other convicts/appellants. As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh spearing for the State 'has argued that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi was not justified in reducing the sentence of death passed against the convicts/appellants to imprisonment for life and, therefore, the sentence of death passed against the convicts/appellants by the learned Trial Court ought to be restored by this Court. The learned Additional Prosecutor- General has, however, opted not to press Criminal Appeal No, 377 of 2008 maintaining that Fida Hussain Khoso accused had rightly been acquitted by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi and that the State had not opposed his appeal before the High Court.
4. Although the convicts/appellants have accepted before us through their learned counsel that they were rightly found guilty of abduction of the abductee namely Ahmad Naeem and have prayed that after setting aside their other convictions and sentences they may be convicted and sentenced only for an offence under Section 365, PPC yet for our own satisfaction we have gone through the entire evidence available on the record in order to examine as to whether the prosecution had in fact succeeded in proving the guilt of the convicts/appellants in that regard or s not. According to the prosecution immediately after his abduction from outside his bungalow Ahmad Naeem abductee had been removed in a car by Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa and Khalid Aziz appellants. The car so used : had allegedly been provided by Junaid Rehman Ansari appellant to his co-convicts. The abductee was,thereafter confined in a house which was frequently visited by Junaid Rehman Ansari appellant and that house was throughout guarded by Qurban Ali Khoso appellant. At the time of the abductee's release after receipt of ransom he was brought to the place of his release in another car and on that occasion some of the appellants had accompanied him in that car. One Bilawal was said to have received the amount of ransom from the abductee's father for its onward payment to the culprits. The initial abduction of Ahmad Naeem abductee had been witnessed by Muhammad Iqbal driver/complainant (PW4) and Jamshaid Ktatn Chowkidar (PW9) and Ahmad Nafeem abductee himself had also appeared before the learned Trial Court as PW18. All the said prosecution eye-witnesses had consistently, categorically and unambiguously pointed their accusing fingers in respect of the initial abduction against Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Atiq Bajwa and Khalid. Aziz appellants. All the said appellants had subsequently been correctly picked up by the. above-mentioned prosecution witnesses during the test identification parades conducted and Supervised by Zulfiqar Ali, Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South (PW.11) and Abdul Qadeer, Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South (PW13). Availability of fingerprints of Abdul Rasheed appellant on the car in which the abductee had initially been abducted had been deposed about by Nasrullah Khan (PW16) and Atiq-ur-Rehman (PW19) and this aspect of the case had been confirmed by a positive report of the Fingerprint Bureau. The role played in the entire transaction by Junaid Rehman Ansari appellant had been deposed about and proved before the learned Trial Court by Muhammad Saleern (PW12), Muhammad Ali (PW15), the alleged abductee namely Ahmad Naeem (PW18) and the investigating officer namely Atiq-ur- Rehman, Inspector (PW19). Qurban Ali Khoso appellant had made a judicial confession before Mr. Abdul Qadeer, Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South (PW1.3), he was correctly picked up in a test identification parade conducted and supervised by the same Magistrate and the role prayed by him during the transaction was also deposed about and proved by the abductee namely Ahmad Naeem (PW18). The above-mentioned prosecution witnesses had made consistent statements regarding: the roles played by the appellants at different stages and the statements made by them had inspired confidence of the learned Courts below vis-a-vis the abduction of Ahmad Naeem abductee by the convicts/appellants and his confinement during the period of abduction.
The conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the convicts/appellants in that regard has been found by us to be quite correct as upon our own assessm ent of the evidence we have shared the said conclusion, In these circumstances the learned counsel for the convicts/appellants have been found by us to be quite justified in not challenging the guilt of the convicts/appellants vis-a-vis abduction of Ahmad Naeem by them.
5. As regards the matter of demand and payment of sansom the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi had practically discarded all the pieces of evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that an amount of ransom had in fact been paid to j the convicts/appellants through an intermediary. We have noticed in this context that the letters (Exhibit-36-A to 36-C) had been held by the High Court to have not been properly proved, the audio cassettes regarding telephonic calls received by the abductee's father from the culprits had been discarded on account of lack of identification of voices recorded therein, e-mails (Exhibits 12, 13 and 14) had been found not to have been proved according to the law and the statement (Exhibit-52) made by Stephen John George, Detective Inspector, Greater Manchester Police. United Kingdom recorded by Zulfiqar AH, Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South (PW11) had also been ruled out of consideration by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, lt had further been found by the High Court that ho evidence had been produced by the prosecution to establish that the money withdrawn by the abductee's father from his Bank had been converted into Pounds Sterling for its payment as ransom in the United Kingdom and no independent evidence had been brought on the record regarding its actual payment to the culprits through an intermediary. We have found all of those considerations weighing with the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi for discarding the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the alleged payment of ransom to the culprits to be quite valid and no legitimate exception can be taken to the reasons recorded by it in that respect.
6. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 365-A, PPC and Section 2(n) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 it is quite evident that , in order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom actual payment of ransom and proof thereof are not sine qua non and the said offence also stands constituted if there is an abduction and the purpose of abduction is extortion of ransom (section 365-A, PPC) or ransom is demanded for release of the abductee (section 2(n) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997). Section 365-A, PPC reads as follows:-- "365-A, Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted, or from any person interested in - the, person kidnapped or abducted, any property, whether movable or immovable, or valuable security, or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall'also be liable to forfeiture of property."
' Section 2(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides as under;-- "(n) "kidnapping for ransom means the action of conveying any person from any place, without his consent, or by force compelling or by any deceitful means inducing him, to go from any place, and unlawfully detaining him and demanding or attempting to demand, money, pecuniary or other benefit from him or from another person, as a condition of his release."
' In the case in hand Muhammad Naeem (PW3), the father of the abductee, had provided elaborate details of different demands made from him by the culprits from time to time for payment of ransom for release of his son and. the detailed statement made by him in that respect before the learned Trial Court had remained completely unshaken. The abductee Ahmad Naeem (PW18) himself had also stated in most explicit terms before the learned Trial Court about the repeated demands made by the culprits for payment of ransom for his release and his statement was completely in line with the statement made of his father in that connection. In his statement the abductee had referred to a letter written by him to his father during the period of his custody regarding demand of ransom made by his captors and, notwithstanding the contention of Mr. Khadim Nadeem Malik, ASC in respect of the abductees signatures on that letter, the abductee had owned that letter (Exhibit-19) and its contents before the learned Trial Court, In their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, that letter was specifically put to the convicts/appellants but they had simply expressed their ignorance about the same and had never challenged authenticity of that letter 2. The audio cassettes produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court regarding telephonic calls received by the abductees father in respect of demands for payment of ransom for the abductees release had been discarded by the High Court because the voices recorded therein had not been properly identified but the said audio cassettes had, despite failure of identification of voices recorded therein, in fact gone a long way in establishing that some telephonic calls had actually been made and received regarding demand of ransom for release of the abductee. Muhammad Nazir, Bank Manager (CW1) had proved before the learned Trial Court that at the relevant time a cheque issued by the abductee's father for withdrawal of Rupees sixty- one lacs had been enchased from the relevant bank and this fact had further established that the prosecution's case regarding demand of ransom by the culprits for release of the abductee was not just a cock and bull story. The; above-mentioned overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution had convinced the learned Courts below, anti the same has also left no doubt in our minds, that the abductee namely Ahmad Naeem had been abducted for the purpose of extorting ransom and that ransom had indeed been demanded for his release. In> this backdrop not only the charge of abduction had been established against the convicts/appellants, guilt in respect of which has not been contested, by them before this Court, it had also been conclusively proved that such abduction lad been carried out for ransom, It may be mentioned here hat there was absolutely no background of any enmity or ill- bill between the convicts/appellants and the abductee lamely Ahmad Naeem and as a matter of fact they were not liven known to each other previously and, thus, the only plausible reason for the addiction was to deto and ransom or release of the abductee. The abductee and his father very the most relevant persons to provide evidence in respect of the abduction and demand of ransom and both of hem had made consistent statements in that respect before he learned Trial Court and they had no reason to falsely implicate the convicts/appellants in a case of this nature, ln his view of the matter we have entertained no manner of doubt that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the convicts/appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi had recorded reasons for reduction of the sentence of death passed against the convicts/appellants by he learned Trial Court to imprisonment for life and those reasons have, in the circumstances of this case, been found any us to be cogent and plausible and, therefore, the same do lot warrant interference by this Court, The leaked Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh appearing for the State last not pressed Criminal Appeal No, 377 of 2008 filed by the State against the acquittal of Fida Hussain Khoso accused by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
8. For what has been discussed above all these appeals are dismissed.