1. ' SHAUKAT ALI MEMON, J.---By judgment dated 24-11-2010, Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism'
2. Court, Shaheed Benzirabad convicted the appellants under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,200,000 each or in default to suffer R.I for three years more. All the convicts are now before this Court, praying for setting side the conviction and sentence and for their acquittal.
3. ' The appellants on 7-6-2008 at about 08.00-a.m are stated to have knocked at the door of complainant Jan Muhammad and requested him for tractor trolley on rental basis in presence of his relatives Allah Rakhio, Shafi Muhammad and Abdul Razzak. The complainant let out the tractor trolley in care of Shafi Muhammad to them, who did not return on same day, as such on the next day, complainant with his brother Allah Rakhio and Ghulam Haider Khaskheli approached appellant Khan Jatoi and others and enquired about Shafi Muhammad and tractor trolley, who did not give satisfactory reply, thus he kept self searching and after one week came to know through his relative Gulab having seen Shafi Muhammad with tractor trolley on Sakrand Bye-pass road with appellants and Naseer Khaskheli, Hajj an Khaskheli, Sajjan Khaskheli and Muhammad Sharif Khaskheli and others. This disclosure motivated the complainant to approach Sajan Khaskheli with Holy Quran for return of Shafi Muhammad and tractor trolley but he replied un satisfactory. On 20- 7-2008 while the complainant with Karo Mehar and Ghulam Haider Khaskheli was available in village school when appellant Khan Jatoi came and demanded Rs,50,000 as ransom for return of Shafi Muhammad and tractor trolley, who was instantly paid Rs,20,000 while balance was promised to be paid after return of his nephew and tractor trolley. The contacts and approaches to Nek Mard brought no result therefore, complainant got registered the F.I.R after approaching the Sessions Judge Benazir Abad. The crime was investigated and culminated into submission of challan showing appellants as well as others as absconders of whom, appellants later on surrendered before trial Court resulting into their conviction and sentence as above. The remaining accused with absconding accused however were acquitted.
4. ' At the very outset, we inquired from learned D.P.G. About the recovery of alleged abductee Shafi Muhammad and tractor trolley, but he could not reply satisfactorily and confirmed that impugned judgment as well as evidence of all the P.Ws is silent about this crucial fact.
5. ' It is argued that entire prosecution story is concocted; that appellants are falsely implicated on account of enmity; that there is unexplained delay of four months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that there is no recovery of either abductee Shafi Muhammad or tractor trolley; that evidence of complainant and his witnesses is contradictory with each other about the mode of payment of the ransom/bhung money of Rs,20,000 against demand of Rs,50,000; that it is quite unnatural that abductee Shafi Muhammad having seen by the P.W. Gulab, did not raise any hue and cry if in captivity against his wishes; that I.O. P.W. Azizullah had recommended disposal of the case in "C" class, but was compelled to challan on account of unknown pressure and that all the circumstances conclusively suggest no proof of the charge, thus according to learned counsel, the conviction and sentence is unwarranted. It is next contended that all the P.Ws are relatives of complainant, who have reasons to support the prosecution and that because of voluntarily going of the alleged abductee with accused in tractor trolley does not attract the ingredients of abduction for ransom falling under section 365-A, P.P.C.
6. ' On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Conceded about the contradictions, unusual delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And recommendations of I.O. For disposal of the case in "C" class, thus he did not support the conviction and sentence.
7. We have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and find that there are material contradictions about the mode of payment of ransom upon demand by appellant. Khan. Jatoi.
8. Complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated that he along with his friend Karo Mehar and brother Ghulam Haider Khaskheli was sitting in school at noon time when appellant Khan Jatoi reached and demanded Rs,50,000 and he paid Rs,20,000 with a promise to pay the remaining amount after the release of tractor trolley and Shafi Muhammad. In cross-examination he has admitted that amount was not available with him instantly thus he left the above P.Ws and brought the amount of Rs,20,000 in cash from his house and handed it over to appellant Khan Jatoi as advance. On this score evidence of P.W Ghulam Haider is that appellant Khan Jatoi came and demanded ransom of Rs,50,000 of which complainant paid Rs,20,000 and for remaining promised to be paid after return of abductee and the tractor trolley. In cross-examination he has stated that Rs,20,000 were paid by the complainant from his Jacket at once.
9. We find that complainant in his cross-examination has admitted his relationship with all the P.Ws namely Ghulam Haider, Allah Rakhio, Gulab, and Abdul Razzak while Qadir Bux himself has admitted his relationship with the complainant. So far P.W. Muhammad Hashim, who acted as mashir of wardat is concerned, there is nothing in evidence to show his relationship with the complainant.
10. ' The evidence of I.O. Is of vital importance who has stated in his examination-in-chief that during course of investigation and inquiry he has recorded the statements of witnesses of locality and came to the conclusion that no cognizable offence was made out therefore, he recommended the case to the SP for its disposal in "C" class, who returned the same for further investigation and thereafter he challaned the accused by showing them as absconders. In cross-examination he has admitted that all the accused persons were innocent.
11. ' Keeping in mind the submissions at bar, and the recorded evidence, the perusal of impugned judgment shows that not a single piece of evidence recorded in cross-examination of any of the witnesses, is discussed. In sweeping way, it is concluded that during cross-examination the evidence of each witness remained unshattered.
12. ' Since on appraisal of the evidence we have noted glaring contradictions regarding mode of payment, absence of motive, unusual delay in lodging the F.I.R., total silence about the recovery of abductee, whether dead or alive, we do not find the impugned judgment meeting with the minimum standards of conviction and sentence therefore, we after hearing the counsel for the respective parties, vide short order dated 26-9-2013, allowed the instant appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellants Khan, Razi and Ali Gul of the charge and these are the reasons for it.