Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.--This judgment will dispose of above captioned Criminal Appeal filed by Abrar Sheikh (appellant) as well as above captioned constitutional petition filed by the Complainant for enhancement of sentence of the appellant who was prosecuted to punishment by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No, I, Multan in a case registered vide FIR No, 744 dated 06.10.2013 under Section 386, PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station, Chahleyek, District Multan. Following convictions and sentences were imposed on the appellant:- Abrar Sheikh.
(i) Five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 386, PPC and to pay fine to the tune of Rs,20,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(ii) Five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 (h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and to pay fine to the tune of Rs,30,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently while extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution saga as narrated by complainant Muhammad Saleem (PW.1) in complaint Exh-PA as well as in F.I.R. Exh-PE is that he was resident of Street No, 1, Qadeerabad and doing the business of medicine. On 02.10.2013 at 01:00 pm Abrar Sheikh (appellant) came to his house and knocked at the door and when he after opening the door asked the appellant that what is the matter, upon this, the appellant handed over to him a chit, wherein an amount of Rs,5000/- was written and asked the complainant for handing over said amount, otherwise, it would not be better for him, whereupon, the complainant said that the appellant had already taken Rs,5000/- about two months earlier and he is not in a position to pay him (appellant) again, as he is suffering loss. The appellant reiterated his previous stance. In the meantime, PWs, Qamar Abbas and Ali Hussain came at the spot, who beseeched the appellant but he remained adhered to his demand, ultimately, he handed over Rs,5000/- to the appellant, which amount he had kept for paying fee of his son, Muhammad Faisal. In the last, the complainant alleged that the appellant was demanding racketeering amount from him every month.
3. The investigation in this case was conducted by Muhammad Farooq, S.I. (PW3). Me deposed that on 06.10.2013, when he was on controlling duty, the complainant of the case came to him and submitted an application for registration of FIR. He sent the same to police station for registration of FIR; prepared two recovery relating to chit as well as Rs,5,000/- (Exh.PB) and (Exh.PC); inspected the place of occurrence; prepared rough site plan (Exh.PD) and recoiled the statements of the PWs.
4. The investigation in this case was also conducted by Sakhawat Ali, Inspector (PW4). He deposed that on 08.10.2013 he arrested the appellant and on 09.10.2013 he took his physical remand for three days; the interrogated him and thereafter finding him involved in this case got him sent to judicial lock up.
5. After completion of investigation, the appellant was found guilty and a report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. Was channelized for facing the trial by placing his name in column No, 3 of the said report.
6. Learned trial Court after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, indicted the appellant to, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution on direction produced live witnesses in all to prove its case.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General renounced PWs namely Ali Hassan and Muhammad Asbraf, Inspector as being de-trop and thereafter vide his statement dated 02.04.2014 closed the prosecution case.
8. Thenceforth, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he gainsaid the charge and professed his innocence. He neither opted to Make statement on oath as required u/S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor to produce defence evidence.
He in reply to question "why this case against you and why the, PWs deposed against you"? Has answered infra:- "This is a false case. I am totally innocent I have committed no such offence. All the PWs are interested witnesses and inimical towards me who were not the eye-witnesses. No recovery was effected from me. As being residing in the same area and due to political revenge, falsely involved me in this case by the complainant and the PWs."
9. At the conclusion of the trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned op-cit by the learned trial Court. Hence, instant appeal as well as connected constitutional petition.
10. To seek acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that relevant and permissible evidence lacks in the case uphold the impugned judgment whereas learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant defended the impugned judgment.
11. Intently heard. Record explored.
12. The incident alleged to have taken place or 02.10.2013 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 06.10.2013 and on the same day, complainant Muhammad Saleem (PW01) of his own produced before the Investigating Officer, the racketeering chit showing an amount of Rs,5,000/- alongwith alleged racketeering amount to the tune of Rs,5,000/- denominating five notes each of Rs,1,000/-, which amount, according to the complainant, the appellant had returned to him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.PC). Wondrously, it has been observed that why the appellant returned the taken ransom amount to the complainant of his own. The alleged chit does not bear the signature of the appellant, even otherwise, no date has been mentioned therein. Till 06.10.2013, the complainant did not move against the appellant. It is in-comprehendible that why the appellant under presentiment for his entanglement because of his alleged wrong, returned the alleged amount to the complainant. The alleged racketeering chit has not been proved by any cogent evidence that it was prepared by the appellant, so, the recovery of the alleged racketeering amount being commonly available in the market has no evidentiary value having no independent corroboration. The conduct of the complainant in these circumstances has been noticed topsy-turvy whereas the appellant was arrested on 08.10.2013. In this way, the prosecution version runs counter to the rational probabilities of an ordinary prudent person.
Nothing was recovered from the appellant during the investigation. No doubt the PWs have made parrot like statements but their testimonies had to be appreciated on the prudence and when so is appraised, then the entire prosecution version appears to be incredible and is not regarded verisimilitude. In these circumstances, the prosecution's case has been found doubtful.
13. For what has been discussed above, its aftermath is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubts, therefore, instan appeal is accepted, thus, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in prison, shall be released in a trice owing to his acquittal, provided not required in any other case.
14. On acquittal of the appellant by accepting his appeal, W.P. No, 9460 of 2014 filed by the complainant for enhancement of his sentence has become superfluous, thus the same is dismissed accordingly.