' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---This State appeal through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar has been filed under section 417, Cr.P.C. Read with section 25(4) of the. A.T.A, 1997 against the judgment dated 12-11-2012 of learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-IV, Malakand at Batkhela vide which the respondents/accused were acquitted in case F.I.R. No,16 dated 4-6-2010 registered under sections 365-A/342/343/34 P.P.C. Section 7 A.T.A at Police Station Kopar, District Malakand.
2. Precise and essential facts leading to the instant appeal are that on 4-6-2010 at 1600 hours, Mst.
Niazbina accompanied by her brother Zainullah Khan reported at Police Station Kopar that she 'Was a third year student of Degree College, Dargai and in order to prepare herself for the examination, had gone to Astana Dar school on 1-6-2010 during vacations for tuition and while coming back from the school on foot when she reached at 'Kas Kaley Khwar' at 0845 hours, she saw a white coloured Suzuki pickup parked over there wherein Ata-ur-Rehman son of Umar Din, Mst. Husan Bibi wife of Umar Din, Mst. Bakht Shada wife of Habibullah and Khan Bacha son of unknown were sitting. Accused Ata-ur-Rehman Khan Bacha caught hold of her and forcibly made- her sit in the vehicle, whereafter accused Mst. Husan Bibi placed a handkerchief over her mouth with which she became unconscious and when after 2/3 hours, she came to senses, she found herself in a room and the two lady accused were sitting there to keep watch on her and were frequently telling her to contact her brother to arrange rupees one million as ransom amount and that on 3-6-2010 at evening time, accused boarded her in a motorcar and after half an hour.
Journey, left her at Dora Road, Peshawar and themselves decamped from the spot, whereafter she called her brother, lkramullah from a PCO at Peshawar who brought her home and that the accused had not subjected her to zina or to any torture and thus the F.I.R. Ibid.
3. After the arrest of the accused and completion of investigation, challan was put in court for trial and after compliance with the provisions of 'section 265(c), Cr.P.C, the respondents/accused were formally charged to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case against the respondents/accused, the prosecution examined six P.Ws., a brief resume of which is as under:--
5. Karim Khan, Lance Naik appeared as P.W.1 and stated to have been entrusted with the warrants under section 204, Cr.P.C. Against the accused which are Exh.P.W.1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/4 and the reports to that effect are Exh.P.W.1/5 to Exh.P.W.1/8. P.W.2 Saif-ur-Rehman, moharrir Police Station Kopar reduced the report of the complainant into F.I.R. Exh.PA. He prepared site plan Exh.PB on the pointation of the complainant. Vide application Ex.P.W.2/1, he applied for issuance of warrants under section 204, Cr.P.C. Against the accused, arrested accused Mst. Husan Bibi and Mst. Bakht Shada on 9-6-2010 and issued their card of arrest Exh.P.W.2/2, recorded statement of lady constable Nagin Bibi under section 161, Cr.P.C. Vide application Exh.P.W.2/6, he applied to DPP Batkhela for opinion and section 365-A, P.P.C. Was added, recorded statements of the P.Ws. And thereafter, handed over the case file to the PC for submission of challan. Mst. Niazbina complainant recorded her statement as P.W.3 and narrated the story of her abduction. Jehangir Khan son of Azimullah recorded his statement as P.W.4 as an eye-witness of the abduction of the complainant by the accused. P.W.5 Aurangzeb son of Abdur Rauf stated that he owned a PCO at Dora Road, Peshawar and on 3-6-2010, the complainant came to his shop and narrated the story of her abduction to him and from his shop, she contacted her brother Ikramullah. P.W.6 is the statement of Subedar Muhammad Raza PC who stated to have submitted complete challan Exh. PK against the accused in the court.
6. Thereafter the statements of the respondents/accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Wherein they professed innocence and 'stated to have been falsely charged. They neither appeared as their own witnesses on oath nor produced any evidence in their defence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents/ accused vide judgment which is impugned herein.
7. The learned A.A.-G. Argued that the judgment of the learned trial court is against law, facts and material on record; that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true-perspective; that the prosecution had brought home its case against the respondents/accused beyond any shadow of doubt; that the respondents/ accused were charged in a case of heinous nature and that the prosecution evidence was wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondents/accused.
8. Arguments heard and record perused.
9. As detailed in the preceding paras, the complainant, Mst. Niazbina stated to have been abducted on her way back from her school to home after attending her tuition classes on 1-6-2010 at 0845 hours by the respondents/accused in a Suzuki pick up after she fell unconscious with a handkerchief put on her mouth by accused Mst. Husan Bibi and after she regained senses, the two lady accused insisted upon her to contact her brother for arranging the ransom amount of one million and then on 3-6-2010 at evening time, she was let free by the accused, whereafter she contacted her brother Ikrarnullah through a PCO at Peshawar. From the narration of the F.I.R. As well as the statement of the complainant before the court, it is abundantly manifest that no money worth the name was paid to the respondents/accused which presumably was the only reason for her alleged abduction. In her examination-in-chief, the complainant stated that the female accused during period of her captivity, "time and again insisted upon to contact my brother for payment Rs,10 lac as ransom." During her cross-examination, she stated that, "my father is a farmer. My father is cultivating the land of Behramand and we have not any land of our own. Our financial position is a bit weak. To another question, she replied, "during the days of occurrence my brother Ikramullah being unmarried was residing with us in the same house." Similarly, she replied to a question that "the house of accused is at some distance from our house. This distance can be covered on foot in about 8 minutes." Still to another question, her reply was that "I have not contacted anyone including my brother through PTCL, cell phone during my illegal confinement as the accused were not providing me this facility. During my illegal confinement, any of the accused was not contacted my brother or other relatives." About accused Atta-ur-Rehman, her reply to a question was that, "cousin of Atta-urRehman whose name was Azra was my friend and I had gone to her house several times. Atta-ur-Rehman is Hafiz-e-Quran." This statement of the complainant per se knocks out the prosecution version. Admittedly the complainant comes from a weak and humble background as her father is working as a tenant on the land of one Behramand and they do not have any land of their own and with such weak financial position, it is unacceptable that the accused who are living in their neighbourhood would demand a huge ransom amount of one million from her family. Another aspect of the case is that admittedly alt of the accused were very much known to the complainant and such being the case, it is neither acceptable nor believable that why after her abduction, they would let her go scot-free without getting the ransom amount in the first hand and then facing humiliation in the society as well as the F.I.R. On the other and thereby being persecuted and prosecuted through the ordeal of a long and protracted trial, The - lodging of the report with its details is unacceptable and what prompted the complainant to do the same though shrouded in mystery, but mala fide stands out most glaringly out of the whole episode. Ikramullah, the brother of the complainant did not appear before the court to record his statement to the effect that either he was contacted by the complainant to arrange the ransom amount for her captors during her captivity or even after her release by the respondents/accused when she allegedly contacted Ikramullah to collect her from the PCO and take her home. This in itself leaves serious question marks about the alleged abduction of the complainant. Moreover, in the P.I.R., no one was 'cited to have witnessed the occurrence but then Jehangir Khan, paternal cousin of the complainant was introduced for the first time to record his statement before th e I.O.
To the effect that he had witnessed the occurrence and thereby the abduction of the complainant at the hands of the respondents/accused. The same is also unbelievable as house of Jehangir Khan is adjacent to A that of the complainant (cross-examination referred). In his examinationin- chief, he referred to the abduction of a girl by the respondents/ accused and in the same breath, he stated that later on 'he came to know that the girl was his cousin but strangely enough, his statement was recorded on the 27th day of the occurrence. As far as the statement of Aurangzeb (P. W.5) is concerned, who was allegedly the owner of the PCO wherefrom the complainant allegedly made a call to her brother lkramullah after her release from the clutches of the respondents/ accused, the same is also not above suspicion. He alleged to have contacted the mobile number of Ikramullah from his PCO but the PCO record to that effect was not obtained in order to verify the statement of the complainant as well as Aurangzeb (P.W.5). The same too, is a mere hearsay statement and the said witness appears to have been procured to fill in the various lacunae found in the prosecution version. The case of the complainant being full of glaring contradictions and material discrepancies, the learned trial court had no choice but to acquit the respondents/accused through the impugned judgment which is unexceptionable and calls for no interference through the instant appeal.
10. Now coming to the principle laid down in connection with appeal against acquittal, we may point out that the principle is different, from appeal against conviction. Different parameters are applied for interference in an appeal against acquittal and appeal against conviction. Presumption of innocence of the accused is double in the case of acquittal. The appellate court would not interfere unless the conclusion reached by the court below is not supported by the evidence on record or is fanciful and perverse. Wisdom in this regard may advantageously be sought from 2004 SCM R 249, 2009 SCM R 288 and 2009 SCM R 946.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant appeal being bereft of any merit and substance is hereby dismissed in limine.