NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Appellant Sajjan son of Ibrahim alias Aboo Palari, Ghulam Muhammad son of Bhooro Palari and Moula Bux by caste Palari were tried by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Badin in Special Case No.60 of 2008 for offences punishable under sections 365-A, 395, 342, P.P.C. Read with sections 6/7, of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered vide Crime No.27/2008 at Police Station Daro, District Thatta. After full dressed trial, by judgment dated 3rd November, 2009, appellants/accused Sajjan and Ghulam Muhammad were convicted under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A, P.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life each and their properties were forfeited to the State. Appellants Sajjan and Ghulam Muhammad were also convicted under section 7(i) of A.T.A., 1997 and sentenced to 5 years' R.I. Benefit section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them. Accused Moula Bux was acquitted of the charge.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that one Ghulam Husain Palari lodged FIR alleging therein that on 30-5-2008 his son Ghulam Sarwar, his son-in-law Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad came to Bathoro village to attend the marriage ceremony in the village Muhammad Ali Palari, Taluka Mir Pur Bathoro in a Car and stayed night at the house of Lakhe Dino Palari where it is alleged that 3 unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the house, overpowered the family members and kidnapped Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad in their car. Complainant went to the Police* Station Daro and lodged aforesaid FIR.
After registration of FIR it was entrusted to ASI Hameer Khan for investigation. He inspected the place of wardat on the pointation of the complainant on 2-6-2008 and prepared such mashirnama. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws.
Ghulam Sarwar, Mamoon Daro, Ghulam Haider and Ali Murad in which they disclosed the names of the culprits. On 21-6-2008 encounter took place between CIA Police Thatta and the dacoits at Khadi Belo forest. Muhammad Ismail, Incharge CIA recovered abductees Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad and recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Accused Sajjan armed with KK was caught hold by the police. He had no license for the KK recovered from him. Six keys of the locks and iron chain were recovered from him. He disclosed the names of the co-accused who ran away from forest, they were Adloo alias Abdul Rahman Soomro, Loung Soorjo, Nawab Palari, Ghulam Muhammad Palari and Moula Bux Palari. On the conclusion of the investigation challan was submitted in the Court of learned. Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court under the above referred sections against accused Sajjan, Ghulam Muhammad and Moula Bux Palari. Accused Nawab was declared as proclaimed offender by trial Court.
3. A formal charge against accused Sajjan, Ghulam Muhammad and Moula Bux was framed by the trial Court at Exh.17 under sections 365-A, 395, 342, P.P.C. Read with sections 6/7, A.T.A., 1997.
Appellants pleaded not guilty to charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial, prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
(1) P.W. Ghulam Hussain at Exh.21.
(2) P.W. Ghulam Rasool at Exh.23.
(3) P.W. Mir Muhammad at Exh.25.
(4) P.W. Ghulam Sarwar at Exh.27.
(5) P.W. Muhammad Ramzan at Exh.28.
(6) P.W. Ghulam Haider at Exh.30
(7) P.W. Mamoon at Exh.31.
(8) Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Qadri Civil Judge and J.M at Exh.32.
(9) P.W. Agha Salahuddin at Exh.36.
(10) P.W. Hameer Khan at Exh.37.
(11) P.W. Muhammad Ismail at Exh.38.
(12) P.W. Muhammad Qasim at Exh.40.
There after, prosecution side was closed by learned Special Prosecutor vide his statement at Exhibit 45.
4. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. At Exhibits-46, 47 and 48 in which prosecution allegations were denied and it is stated the prosecution case is a false.
Appellant Sajj an has denied that he had pointed out the place from where blue coloured Cuore Car of abductees was recovered. Accused Sajjan in a question as to why P.Ws. Have deposed against him has replied that P.Ws. Had enmity with co-accused Ghulam Muhammad over the land and murder case of his uncle Khuda Bux, such FIR was lodged against the complainant party.
Accused Sajjan in a question whatever he has to say, replied that he is innocent, he was taken by Ghulam Hussain on 5th June, 2008 from the house of D.W. Porho from Khipro and compelled to depose against co-accused Ghulam Muhammad to which he refused. Thereafter, he was handed over to the police and a false 13(d), Arms Ordinance case was registered against him as well as false police encounter case. Accused Sajjan produced D.W. Namely Porho in his defence at Exhibit-
49. Accused Ghulam Muhammad has deposed that P.Ws. Have deposed against him due to enmity over the murder and dispute over the land. He pleaded innocence and stated that his cousin namely Ghulam Hussain has been murdered at the instance of the complainant. Such FIR No.25/2007 was registered at Police Station Noori Abad under section 302, P.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge Anti-Terrorist Court, Badin, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above and they have preferred the instant appeal.
6. Mr. Habib Ahmed learned Advocate for the appellants Sajjan and Ghulam Muhammad argued that P.W. Mir Muhammad has not implicated appellant Ghulam Muhammad. Prosecution case is highly doubtful, prosecution witnesses have suppressed their relationship with accused persons except P.W. Ghulam Rasool. He has further argued that no reliable evidence has been brought on record regarding the payment of the ransom to the accused. He argued that recovery of the abductees from accused Sajjan in the police encounter was managed one and Kalashnikov was also foisted upon accused Sajjan. He has further argued that accused Sajjan had not pointed out the car used in the commission of the offence. He has also argued that co-accused Moula Bux has been acquitted by the trial Court on the same evidence. Mr. Habib Ahmed placed on record certified true copies of the judgments at the time of arguments in order to show that accused Sajjan has been acquitted by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta in Crime No. 12/2008 under sections 324/353, PS Bannu as well as in 13(d), Arms Ordinance case. Lastly it is argued that prosecution has tailed to prove the case of -kidnapping for ransom therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to appellants are not warranted by law.
7. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khuharo learned DPG argued that evidence of one abductee namely Ghulam Rasool is sufficient for maintaining the conviction in this case as it is reliable and trustworthy as the said abductees had remained in captivity for about 40 days. He has further argued that accused Sajjan was arrested in the police encounter and abductees/P.Ws. Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad were recovered. Learned D.P.-G. Argued that P.W. Ghulam Haider paid ransom of Rs.10 lacs to accused. Prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants and trial Court has appreciated evidence according to law.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have scanned the entire evidence brought on record in order to see whether the trial Court has appreciated the evidence according to the settled principles of law.
9. Complainant Ghulam Hussain has stated that on 30-5-2008 he was sleeping in the house, on the same date his son Ghulam Sarwar and nephews Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad came at Deh Dacheri Taluka Bathoro to attend the marriage ceremony. After attending the same, they went to the house of Lakha Dino Palari to stay night over there. At 3-00 a.m. Complainant received a mobile call of his son informing him that three unknown persons carrying deadly weapons entered into the house of Lakhadino, over powered family members and kidnapped Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad. Thereafter, at 6-00 or 7-00 p.m. Complainant went to the police station Daro where he lodged FIR against unknown persons.
10. P.W.2 Ghulam Rasool is abductee in this case. He has deposed that on 30-5-2008, he along with his -cousins Mir Muhammad and Ghulam Sarwar went from Karachi in a car to attend the marriage at village Muhammad Ali Palari. After attending the marriage he along with his cousins went to the house of Lakhadino Palari for staying night over there. On 1-6-2008 at 3-00 a.m., they were sleeping where three persons namely Abdur Rehman alias Adloo Soomro, Loung Sorjo and accused Sajjan Palari entered armed with weapons, controlled everybody and kidnapped him and Mir Muhammad in a blue color coure car. After kidnapping in the car he has deposed that accused Sajjan was driving the same and they were taken to village Jehanan Soomro and detained in a room. On the next day 3 other persons appeared who were guarding them and they were identified as Ghulam Muhammad Palari, Nawab Palari and Moula Bux. Palari. They told Ghulam Rasool that they have been kidnapped for ransom. Thereafter, accused told Ghulam Rasool that their parents have paid ransom and abductees were brought by the accused at Khadi forest due to fear of police encounter and abductees were chained by them. On 21-6-2008 at 4-00 a.m. There was encounter with the police. At the time of encounter accused Abdul Rehman, Loung Sorjo, Sajjan Palari, Nawab Palari, Ghulam Muhammad and Moula Bux Palari were present. He has deposed that all the accused made their escape good except accused Sajjan Palari who was arrested by the police in encounter who was armed with K.K. He has further deposed that police recovered keys of iron chain from accused Sajjan and opened the locks and released him and another abductee. He has clearly stated that accused Ghulam Muhammad and Sajjan Palari present in the Court were same who had kidnapped them. This witness did' not identify accused Moula Bux in the Court. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that accused Ghulam Muhammad and Sajjan had not abducted him. He has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing, falsely against the accused at the instance of complainant Ghulam Hussain.
11. P.W.3 Mir Muhammad is another abductee, he has stated that on 30-5-2008 he along with Ghulam Rasool came from Karachi to village Daro for attending the marriage. After attending the Marriage they went to the house of Lakhadino Palari to sleep there. At 3-00 a.m. Three unknown persons armed with weapons entered into the house and controlled upon all the persons present in the house and abducted Mir Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool and brought to village Jehanan Soomro. After some days three persons appeared to guard over them one person disclosed his name as Abdur Rehman alias Adloo Soomro and stated that they have been kidnapped for ransom. He has stated that they were kept at various places. After some days at 3-15 a.m. There was firing. All the accused succeeded in running away except accused Sajjan, he was arrested by the police and keys were taken from his pocket and iron chains of Mir Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool were unlocked by the police. K.K without permit was also recovered from accused Sajjan.
P.W. Mir Muhammad has specifically stated that accused Sajjan Palari present in the Court is same who had kidnapped him. In the cross-examination he has replied that accused Sajjan Palari is his relative but denied the suggestion that there is dispute between him and accused Sajjan over the land. He has also denied the suggestion for deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of the complainant.
12. P.W.4 Ghulam Sarwar has deposed that on 1-6-2008 he along with his relatives Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad came from Karachi to Daro city to attend the marriage ceremony of relative.
After marriage ceremony they went to the house of one relative namely Lakhadino Palari to stay night over there. At about 3-00 a.m. Three unknown persons entered into the house and controlled upon them as well as family members and kidnaped Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad in the car belonging to the abductees. Immediately after the incident he reported the matter to his father Ghulam Hussain on cell. He has stated that accused Nawab Palari, Sajjan Palari, Ghulam Muhammad, Loung Sorjo are involved in this case. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the house of Lakhadino on the night of incident. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the complainant.
13. P.W.5 Muhammad Ramzan has acted as mashir of place of wardat.
14. P.W.6 Ghulam Haider Palari he has stated that on 1-6-2008 P.Ws. Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad were kidnapped and after 15/16 days of their kidnapping his brother received a call from accused Abdur Rehman alias Adloo Soomro who demanded ransom and stated that Loung Surjo, Ghulam Muhammad Palari, Sajjan Palari, Nawab Palari, Moula Bux Palari were also with him.
They demanded Rs.20,00,000 for the release of the abductees else threatened to kill the abductees.
He has deposed that his brother gave him Rs.10,00,000 for payment to the culprits and he went to the pointed place Bolari Shah Karim and called accused Abdur Rehman. P.W. Ghulam Haider was asked to proceed towards Jinan Soomro Road where two persons were standing. Vehicle was stopped by Ghulam Haider and he paid Rs.10,00,000 to accused Abdul Rehman, at that time accused Ghulam Muhammad, Nawab Palari, Sajjan Palari, Moula Bux and Loung were present near mosque. P.W. Ghulam Haider was asked by the accused persons to convey the complainant Ghulam Hussain to make arrangement of Rs.10,00,000 more else they would face the consequences. He has stated that he identified accused Ghulam Muhammad and Sajjan at the time of payment of the ransom. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion for deposing falsely against the accused.
15. P.W.7 Mamon has deposed that on 30-5-2008, he was sleeping in the house where some unknown persons armed with deadly weapons entered and kidnaped Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad in Coure car. After 2/3 days the complainant received a mobile call about the abduction of Mir Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool.
16. Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Qadri Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate has stated that on 1-7-2008, he was posted as Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Mirpur Bathoro. He recorded 164, Cr.P.C.
Statements of P.Ws. Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad in Crime 27/2008 under section 365-A, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Daro.
17. P.W.9 Agha Salahuddin Inspector has deposed that on 1-6-2008 he was posted as SHO PS Daro.
On the same date Ghulam Hussain appeared at P.S for lodging the report and he recorded the FIR.
18. P.W.10 ASI Hameer Khan has deposed that on 1-6-2008 he was entrusted the investigation of Crime No.27/2008. On 2-6-2008, he inspected the place of incident on the pointation of complainant in presence of the mashirs. On 4-6-2008 he recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws., who disclosed the names of the accused persons. On 21-6-2008 there was encounter in between CIA police Thatta and the accused persons and Muhammad Ismail Jatt Incharge CIA during encounter recovered the abductees namely Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad and arrested accused Sajjan. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he had never visited place of wardat and also denied that he was deposing falsely.
19. P.W.11 Muhammad Ismail Sub-Inspector deposed that on 21-6-2008 he was incharge CIA Centre Thatta. On the same date, on the directions of the DPO that abductees Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad have been detained at Khadi Belo forest by the group of Adlo Soomro. He proceeded there along with subordinate staff vide roznamcha entry No. 15 at 4500 hours. SHO Daim Khaskheli also reached at Bhul Kori forest where firing started upon police party with intention to kill them.
Police also fired in self-defence. After some time police caught hold one culprit armed with KK, remaining culprits taking benefit of darkness succeeded to run away. Police party heard voice of two persons who were crying around the police party but they had iron chains. On enquiry, they disclosed their names as Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad. They told the police the entire episode one culprit who surrendered before the police and disclosed his name as Sajjan Palari resident of Shah Karim Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan. Police conducted his personal search in presence of mashirs and recovered six keys of locks from his side pocket. He was enquired about the license of KK to which he replied in negative. Accused Sajjan disclosed the names of co- accused as Adlo alias Abdur Rehman Soomro, Loung Surjo, Nawab Palari, Ghulam Muhammad Palari, Moula Bux Palari. Mashirnama of arrest and recovery of the abductees was prepared at spot in presence of mashirs. Thereafter, both the abductees and accused Sajjan were brought to the police station where FIR bearing Crime No.12/2008 under sections 324/353, P.P.C. And separate FIR for carrying KK without license permit bearing Crime No.13/2008 under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance was registered against accused Sajjan on behalf of the State. In the cross-examination incharge CIA has denied the suggestion that KK has been foisted upon the accused and he was deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of DPO.
20. P.W.12 Inspector Muhammad Qasim has stated that on 27-6-2008 ASI Hameer Palejo handed over to him case papers of this case for further investigation. He got 164, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws.
Recorded from Civil Judge and J.M. Bathoro. Accused Sajjan during interrogation on 1-7-2008 disclosed that car used in this crime has been parked at Shah Karim Dargha two days before his arrest. On such disclosure, Inspector took the accused Sajjan and mashirs and proceeded to Shah Karim Dargha and secured coure blue color car. It was recovered in presence of mashirs. On 6-7- 2008, on spy information he arrested accused Moula Bux at Pannah Forest in presence of the mashirs and recovered one axe lying beside the accused under the tree. He secured the same in presence of mashirs, prepared mashirnama of arrest and recovery from accused Moula Bux and submitted challan in ATC Hyderabad. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that recovery has been foisted upon the accused Moula Bux.
21. It was entire prosecution evidence which was brought on record.
22. Accused Sajjan has examined D.W. Phoro in his defense. He has stated that on 6th May, 2008 accused Sajjan came in his village Khipro for labour and stayed for 10 days at Khipro. On 5th May, 2008 Ghulam Hussain Palari along with 3/4 persons came at his village and he offered them cup of tea and accused Sajjan went with Ghulam Hussain to Karachi in search of job. After 6/7 days he came to know that Sajjan has been arrested by the police in this case. In the cross-examination to SPP, he has denied that he has deposed in the favour of accused Sajjan to save him.
23. Contention of Mr. Habib Ahmed Advocate that co-accused Moula Bux has been acquitted by trial Court and appellants have been acquitted in encounter and 13(d), Arms Ordinance cases and one abductee Mir Muhammad has not implicated co-accused Ghulam Muhammad, but in our view it would not furnish sufficient ground for acquittal of the appellants for the reasons that strong evidence of abductees and P.W. Ghulam Haider, who made payment of ransom to the accused has been brought on record as well as evidence of Sub-Inspector CIA, who recovered abductees after encounter and arrested accused Sajjan. It is settled law that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is duty of Court to separate grain from chaff, where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that the evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Learned trial Court has rightly differentiated accused in this case. Contention of Mr. Habib Ahmed learned Advocate for the appellants that prosecution witnesses had suppressed relationship with accused as well as enmity. Contention is devoid of the legal force for the reason that information regarding the incident was conveyed to the complainant Ghulam Hussain by his son Ghulam Sarwar on the telephone, and there was nothing on record to establish that Ghulam Sarwar knew the appellants or there was any relationship between Ghulam Hussain and the accused. Even otherwise, we have to see the substance in the evidence which has been brought on record. This is a case of kidnapping for ransom, evidence of two abductees, the persons who paid ransom cannot be rejected on this ground alone for the reasons that prosecution. Evidence is natural, coherent and rings true.
Defence evidence appears to be unbelievable and afterthought, D.W. Did not belong to the village from where abductees were kidnapped. Moreover, defence plea has not been put up to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination, as such defence theory is not acceptable at all. As far as last contention of Mr. Habib Ahmed that allegation regarding payment of the ransom did not stand attracted as no adequate and satisfactory evidence has been produced by the prosecution.
In order to appreciate the contention, section 365-A, P.P.C. Is produced 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."
24. Section 2(n) of 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.
25. From the perusal of the evidence, it transpires that P.W-Ghulam Haider has clearly deposed that he made payment of Rs.10 lacs to the accused at the pointed place. Even otherwise, from a bare reading of provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 2(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is quite evident that in order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom and proof thereof are not sine qua non and said offence also stands constituted if there is an abduction and the purpose of the abduction is extortion of ransom or ransom is demanded for the release of the abductee.
Eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has deposed that demand for ransom was made and P.W. Ghulam Haider paid ransom to accused. Therefore, we hold that demand was made by the culprits for payment of the ransom for release of the abductees and it was actually paid. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence.
26. From the close scrutiny of the evidence as discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt for the reasons that abductee/P.W. Ghulam Rasool has clearly deposed that he was abducted along with P.W. Mir Muhammad from the house of Lakhadino by the accused persons Ghulam Muhammad and Sajjan. P.W./abductee Mir Muhammad has also clearly stated that he was kidnapped along with Ghulam Rasool and stated that accused Sajjan present in the Court was the same. Both the abductees have stated that after abduction accused chained them and they were recovered in the result of the police encounter. Accused Sajjan was arrested by the police. Eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has also fully implicated accused Sajjan, Ghulam 'Muhammad, Nawab Palari and Loung.
P.W. Ghulam Haider, the brother of the complainant has clearly stated that on the demand of the accused persons he paid Rs.10,00,000 to the. Accused Abdul Rehman at that time accused Ghulam Muhammad, Nawab, Sajjan, Moula Bux and Loung were present near mosque. Accused Sajjan was arrested with K.K, abductees were recovered and he led the police party to the place where car used in the commission of the crime was parked. It was secured on the pointation of accused Sajjan. Abductees namely P.Ws Ghulam Rasool and Mir Muhammad and Ghulam Haider who paid ransom of Rs.10,00,000 to the accused had no enmity with accused Sajjan and Ghulam Muhammad to involve them in this heinous offence. Both the abductees were in the captivity of the accused for more than 40 days and abductee Ghulam Rasool has deposed that accused Ghulam Muhammad and Sajjan present in the Court were the same who abducted them. Abductee Mir Muhammad has also stated that accused Sajjan present in the court was same. He has not implicated accused Ghulam Muhammad but his entire evidence cannot be brushed aside and disbelieved on this ground alone. P.W. Ghulam Haider paid ransom and he has implicated both the appellants and others in the commission of the offence. Accused Sajjan was caught red handed in the police encounter and both abductees were recovered from his possession. All the pieces of evidence brought on record by the prosecution connect the accused in the commission of offence.
Incharge CIA who arrested both appellants in the police encounter had also no motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. We have no reasons to disbelieve such confidence inspiring evidence. The honourable Supreme Court in more than one case has held that approach of the court while deciding the criminal matters should be dynamic and it should take into consideration the surrounding situation and should not lightly set aside a conviction on technical ground if the Court's conscience is satisfied that factually the convict was guilty of the offence. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State through Advocate-General Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "(2) Before touching upon the merits of the case, I may observe that there cannot be two opinions that the duty of the Court is to administer the laws as are operative in the country and if such laws fail to achieve the desired result, then it is the duty of the legislature to make necessary amendments therein. However, at the same time, it is also a well-settled proposition of law that while applying a particular law, the Court should take into consideration the object for which it has been enacted. The interpretation of the law should be placed in a manner which may advance the object and suppress the mischief for which the law in question might have been enacted and not to construe in a manner which may defeat the object of the law.
(3) It is a matter of public knowledge that in Sindh, on account of kidnapping for ransom, commission of dacoities and other offences, the people are feeling insecured. The learned trial Court has dilated upon these aspects in details. I am inclined to subscribe to the view found favour with it. The approach of the Court in matters like the case in hand should be dynamic and if the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed in the manner in which it has been alleged by the prosecution, the technicalities should be overlooked without causing any miscarriage of justice."
27. Looking to the peculiar circumstances, this Court is satisfied from prosecution evidence that offence of kidnapping for ransom has been committed by appellants Sajjan and Ghulam Muhammad in the manner as alleged by prosecution. Prosecution witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in the case of this nature. Prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts, the learned trial Court has dilated upon all aspects of case and appreciated evidence properly. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and judgment of trial Court dated 3rd November, 2009, requires no interference.
Consequently, Appeal is dismissed.