' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Appellants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Muhammad Khalid Mehmood alias Rana along with acquitted accused Moeen Ayub Mirza were tried by learned Judge ATC-IV, Karachi, in Special, Cases No. 81, 82 and 84 of 2009 arising out of FIR No. 919/2009 registered at P.S. Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi. And FIRS Nos.97/2009 and 99/2009 registered at P.S. Saeedabad. After full dressed trial, vide judgment dated 16th August, 2013, Appellants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid Mehmood were convicted in Crime No. 919/2009 under section 7(e) Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A, P.P.C. And were sentenced to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of their property. Appellants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid Mehmood were further convicted under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentenced to two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each in case of default in payment of the fine they were ordered to suffer S.I for six months more. All The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the accused. Accused Mubeen Ayub was acquitted of the charge. We intend to decide the aforesaid appeal by this judgment.
2. The facts are stated exhaustively in the aforesaid judgment. To recapitulate briefly, it may be noted that on 03.11.2009 at 1320 hours, one Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Ashraf lodged, FIR at police station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, alleging therein that terrible happening occurred on 29.10.2009 that one Farhan Ali son of Gul Chaman was kidnapped for ransom at Chamra Chowrangi and the demand of Rs.2,000 000/- was made on the mobile phone of complainant No. 0321- 2094643 through Mobile No.0333-2132455. After one day, on 30.10.2009 after receipt of the ransom of Rs.250,000/- from the father of Farhan Ali at Paracha Chowrangi, Sher Shah, Karachi, abductee was released. FIR of the incident was lodged by Nasir Mehmood at Police Station, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi. It was recorded by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Ashiq vide Crime No.919/2009 under Sections 365-A, P.P.C.
3. During investigation, Sub-Inspector Ali Muhammad proceed to the house of abductee Farhan Ali and he pointed out the place from where Farhan was abducted. Mashirnama was prepared in presence of the Mashirs. Investigation Officer prepared mashirnama of the place detention of the abductee in presence of mashirs. Accused were arrested in this case in presence of mashirs.
Memos regarding re-arrest of the accused persons in this case, seizure of car, memos regarding used SIMs, mobile phone, memo regarding arrest and physical search of the accused were prepared. IA/ recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the PWs. On conclusion of the investigation, 1.0.
Submitted challan against the accused persons under section 365-A P.P.C., 7(e) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. Separate cases under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 were also challaned against the accused. In terms of Section 21(M) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 13(d) Arms Ordinance cases were tried jointly with main case under Section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
4. A formal Charge under different heads against accused Ghaffar son of Shah Muhammad Ansari Muhammad Aamir son of Muhammad Umar Qureshi, Rana Muhammad Khalid Mehmood alias Rana son of Abdul Haq Muhammad Aijaz alias Vicky son of Muhammad Saleem and Syed Aamir Ali Jafferi son of Syed Sarwar Ali Jafferi was framed under sections 2(n), 6(1)(b), 6(2)(e) punishable under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read with section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded at Exhibits-29 and 30. To bring home the guilt of the accused in respect of charges against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses:--
1. PW-1 Kamran Ata, Exhibit-11 2'. PW-2 Shabbir Ahmed Exhibit-12.
5. Thereafter, two Criminal Revision Applications bearing Nos.51 and 58 of 2010 were filed by accused Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Syed Aamir Ali Jafferi before this Court and same were disposed of on 23.09.2010 with direction to reinvestigate crimes and submit report.
6. On Appeal from order passed by this Court dated 23.09.2010 in Cr.Rev. Applications No.51 and 58 of 2010, Honourable Supreme Court Cr. Petition Nos.109-K and 110-K of 2010 by judgment dated 22.12.2010 set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law in the given circumstances of the case.
7. In the meanwhile, accused Muhammad Aamir son of Muhammad Umar Qureshi, Muhammad Aijaz alias Vicky son of Muhammad Saleem and Syed Amir Ali son of Syed Samar Ali Jafferi, were released and absconded away during trial. N.B.Ws. Were issued against them the same were returned unexecuted. Proceedings under sections 87 and 88 were concluded against them and they were declared as proclaimed offenders.
8. Amended Charge was framed by trial Court, without legal requirement against accused Abdul Ghaffar son of Shah Muhammad Ansari, Rana Muhammad Khalid Mehmood alias Rana son of Abdul Haq and Moeen Ayoub son of Muhammad Ayoub Mirza under sections 365-A/ 109/34, P.P.C.
Read with section 7(e) Anti-Terrorism-Act, 1997 and under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance 1965 at Exhibit-16. To the charge, all the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial prosecution examined following witnesses:--
1. PW-1 Farhan at Exhibit-17.
2. PW-2 Muhammad Ashiq, Exhibit-18.
3. PW-3 Gut Chaman, Exhibit-19
4. PW-4 Nasir Mehmood, Exhibit-20..
5. PW-5 Khawaja Mueen-u-Din, Exhibit-22
6. P.W.-6 Muhammad Rizwan Akram, Exhibit-24
7. PW-7 Ali Muhammad, Exhibit-25.
8. PW-8 Manzoor Ahmed, Exhibit-26.
9. PW-9 Muhammad Babar, Exhibit-27.
9. Learned, Special Prosecutor conducting the case on behalf of the prosecution filed statement dated 13.06.2013 that all the material witnesses have been examined and closed the prosecution side.
10. Appellants Abdul Ghaffar and Rana Khalil Mehmood alias Rana have denied the prosecution allegations and stated that evidence against them for kidnapping of Farhan ransom was false.
Both appellants have also denied their arrest and recovery of unlicensed repeaters from their possession. Appellants/accused have stated that no PWs have deposed against them except abductee PW Farhan. Accused did not lead defence and declined to give statement on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegations. In reply to a question, that what else he has, to say, appellant Abdul Ghaffar replied that he is an innocent and complainant Nasir Mehmood has involved him falsely, on account of some money dispute with accused Moeen Ayoub and brother- in-law of Moeen Ayoub, who was friend of accused Abdul Ghaffar. Appellant, Rana Khalid Mehmood was asked as what she has to say, he replied that he was involved by the complainant in this case as co-accused Abdul Ghaffar was working with him in the factory.
11. We have carefully heard Mr. Nasir Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the entire evidence.
12. Learned Advocate for the Appellants argued that there was delay of 4 days in lodging of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. Complainant had enmity with accused Moeen Ayoub and his evidence could not have been relied upon by the trial Court for the purpose of recording conviction against the Appellants. It is further argued that repeaters recovered from the accused were not sent to the Ballistic Expert for report. Despite spy information, repeaters were recovered from the possession of the accused without associating the independent and respectable persons of the locality. Such exercise was in violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. It is argued that evidence of abductee Farhan Ali has not be properly appreciated by the trial Court. There were number of inherent defects in the prosecution case. It is argued that it was unsafe to rely upon such type of evidence for conviction. Lastly, it is submitted that defence plea has not been considered by the trial Court and the prosecution case highly doubtful.
13. Learned DPG argued that delay in lodging of FIR has been fully explained. Complainant Nasir Mehmodd had no enmity or criminal litigation with accused Moeen Ayoub. No documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the accused in their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He has argued that abductee Farhan has fully implicated the Appellants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid Mehmood. PW Farhan had identified four accused persons in the identification parade before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. Lastly, he has argued that omission of the Investigation Officer by not sending the weapons to the Ballistic Expert would not destroy the direct evidence of abductee Farhan in this case. He has submitted that provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Would not apply to this case. He has argued that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants/accused and prayed for maintaining conviction recorded by the trial Court.
14. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties before us, we have gone through the evidence to satisfy whether the trial Court has appreciated the evidence according to the settled principles of the law.
15. In this case, evidence of PW No.1 Farhan is material for just decision of the case. He has deposed that on 29.10.2009 he was present at his house, it was 08:00 p.m. Nasir Mehmood gave him the key of the car and mobile number and asked Farhan to pick up his friends/guests from Chamra Chowrangi. He proceeded there, established a contact on the said Cell number and reached at the place where guests were standing. He parked his car and three persons got down from another car and forcibly made the Farhan to sit in the car. One accused out of them drove the car for about one hour and stopped and he was confined by the accused person in a room at some unknown place 3/4 persons visited Farhan where he was detained on the following day. One of the accused persons got Farhan contacted with Nasir Mehrnood and he informed him that accused were demanding Rs.2,000,000/- for his release. After sometime, contact of Farhan was established again with Nasir Mehmood. After 3/4 hours, accused informed Farhan that they were going to release him and he was released in a taxi at Sher Shah where his father along with one employee was standing.
After a few days of his release police visited his home and he pointed out to the police the place from where he was abducted. Police prepared such mashirnama, he has produced it as Exhibit 17/A. Police also prepared mashirnama of the place where Farhan was released. PW Farhan has deposed that he had appeared before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate where he identified four accused persons in the identification parade. He has clearly deposed that accused Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid present in court were same. He did not implicate accused Moeen Ayoub Mirza. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that accused were shown to him by police before identification parade in the police station. Evidence of the Farhan who is abductee in this case is natural, trustworthy, coherent and confidence inspiring. He had no motive or enmity to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Even no suggestion was put to him specifically about any enmity with the appellants. We have no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
16. PW-3 Gul Chaman, the father of abductee Farhan has deposed that abductee Farhan is his son and he was working with complainant Nasir Mehmood. He was told by the complainant that he had sent Farhan in a car to take his guests from Chamra Chowrangi. Thereafter, complainant told to Gul Chaman that his son Farhan has been abducted and culprits were demanding Rs.2,000,000/- for his release. Lastly, ransom was settled at Rs.250,000/-. On 30.10.2009 complainant gave Gul Chaman Rs.250,000/- and mobile and asked him that culprits would contact him on the mobile and he would give the said amount to them. Thereafter, Gul Chaman with PW Shahzad proceeded to the pointed place and paid ransom to the accused and his son was released and he informed the release of his son to the complainant. On 04.11.2009 police inspected the place where he had paid ransom to the accused persons. He has deposed that accused present in the Court were not same but stated that he had identified two accused before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate to whom ransom was paid by him.
17. PW-4 Complainant Nasir Mehmood, deposed that abductee Farhan was working with him. On 28.10.2009 he received a business call from Mobile No.0323-3972981 on his mobile No.0321- 2094643. Caller introduced him as Sajid. PW Nasir received a number of calls from the said caller and replied him that he was busy with his guest and was unable to meet.Him. On 29.10.2009, he received a call and Sent abductee Farhan his car No.ANZ-749, Alto Blue colour to take said Sajid from Chamra Chowrangi. When Farhan did not return back, Nasir Mehmood dialed said number, who was claiming to be Sajid but it was not responded. After. Sometime said Cell number was found powered off. Thereafter, Nasir Mehmood narrated this fact to the elder brother of the abductee and gave such information to 15. He then went to PS. Korangi Industrial Area and narrated the facts to the duty officer. Thereafter, Nasir Mehmood went to the office of CPLC where he received a call from the number of abductee Farhan and he was informed that culprits had received Rs.500,000/- for committing murder of complainant Nasir Mehmood but it was his luck, he did not go himself and sent Farhan. Thereafter, Farhan informed Nasir Mehmood that culprits were demanding Rs.2,000,000/- ransom for his release. Thereafter, Nasir Mehmood submitted such application to CPLC. He was advised by CPLC to remain engaged with culprits regarding settlement of the ransom. Finally, Rs.250,000/- ransom was settled. Complainant Nasir Mehmood issued Cheque of Rs.250,000/- to PW Shahzad for making payment to the culprits for release of the abductee. On 20.09.2009 said amount was handed over to PW Gul Chaman, the father of the abductee. After payment abductee was released. FIR was lodged.
18. PW-5 Syed Khawaja Moeenuddin has deposed that on 13.11.2009 he was posted in Anti-Violent Crime Cell, Karachi. On the same date he along with his subordinate staff left for arrest of absconding accused. At midnight time, he came to know through spy informer that four suspected persons were traveling in the car for committing some crime. Police held nakabandi at Rubi Cinema, Baldia Town area and intercepted blue coloured car bearing registration AMR-582. From the said car Inspector arrested accused- Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid. He conducted personal search of accused Abdul Ghaffar Ansari in presence of the mashirs and recovered one unlicensed 12 bore repeater No.A4463FAC containing three live cartridges and from the personal search of accused Rana Khalid Mehmood alias Rana unlicensed repeater No.4284-FAC, containing 4 live cartridges. Both the accused had no licenses for the repeaters carried by them. Thereafter, appellants/accused were brought to the police station where separate FIRs under section 13(d)
Arms Ordinance, 1965 were registered against them. 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of the PWs were recorded. On 18.11.2009 Inspector went to CPLC and obtained call data of SIM Wand and call data of Mobile SIM of accused Aijaz Vicky. I.O. Also obtained audio CD, containing conversation of complainant and accused in respect of payment ransom regarding release of abductee Farhan from the office of CPLC. On 19.11.2009, on the pointation of accused Aijaz Vicky accused Mobeen Ayoub, Syed Aamir Jaffery and Siraj alias Sijee were arrested and Accused Aijaz Vicky disclosed before the police that accused Syed Aamir Jaffery had paid Rs.100,000/-to him for committing murder of complainant. He-has deposed that Abdul Ghaffar and Rana Khalid present in the Court were same. In the cross-examination he has replied that case was reinvestigated by SDPO Sirajuddin Lashari on the orders of the High Court. Orders of the High Court were set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court and trial Court was directed to decide case according to law, in the cross-examination; he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused.
19. PW-6 AS! Muhammad Rizwan Akram was the member of the police party of Inspector Khawaja Moeenuddin. He has given the entire episode of the incident and stated that he acted as mashir of arrest of the accused, seizure of the arms and ammunition, mobile phones and car. He has clearly deposed the accused present in the Court were same. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of Inspector Moeenuddin.
20. PW-7 I.O. Ali Muhammad has investigated the case and stated that after receipt of FIR No.919/2009 under section 365A/34, P.P.C. He started investigation and went to the complainant Nasir Mehmood and he produced Farhan before him. On the pointation of Farhan Ali he prepared mashirnama of the place from where Farhan was kidnapped. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs investigation Officer inspected place where Farhan was released, such, mashirnama was also prepared. He had also prepared mashimama of the place where ransom was paid to the accused for the release of the abductee and recorded. 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of PWs On 13.11.2009. Inspector Moeenuddin of AVCC arrested accused Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Aamir Qureshi, Rana Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Aijaz alias Vicky from Baldai, Saeedabad, and recovered weapons from their possession and returned back to AVCC and lodged. 13(d) Arms Ordinance cases against them separately Ali Mohammad interrogated the above named accused in this case and arrested them and recovered Car NO.AMR-582 in presence of mashirs Inspector Chaudhry Manzoor and ASI Adil Ahmed Shaikh. I.O. Had also recovered original registration number plate of ANZ-749. He had also visited the place where abductee was detained, it was pointed out by Farhan, situated near Sunni Tehrik office Baldia Town, Karachi. I.O. Has stated that at the time of arrest of accused by Inspector Moeenuddin two SIMs and one mobile were recovered from the accused used by them in the instant case, the same were recovered from possession of accused Aamir and Aijaz alias Vicky. On 17.11.2009 he got identification parade of accused Abdul Ghaffar Ansari, Muhammad Aamir Qureshi, Rana Khalid Mehmood and Aijaz alias Vicky from the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East. On 18.11.2009 he collected data of mobile phone from CPLC. He had also collected audio CD of calls between accused persons and parents of the abductee Farhan. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that on the directions of the High Court cases were reinvestigated and present appellants/accused were found innocent. However, he has denied the suggestion that false cases were registered against the accused due to previous enmity between the complainant and accused over the business transaction.
21. PW-8 SIP Manzoor Ahmed, has deposed that on 13.11.2009 Sub-Inspector interrogated accused persons, namely, Abdul Ghaffar Ansari, Aamir Qureshi, Rana Khalid Mehmood and Ayaz Ahmed Vicky in his presence. In the cross-examination, he had denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of Inspector Moeenuddin.
22. PW Mr. Kamran Atta Soomro, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate has deposed that on 17..11.2009 investigation officer Ali Mohammad submitted an application before him for conducting identification parade of accused Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Aamir, Rana Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Ayaz alias Vicky in FIR No.919/2009 under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Of PS Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, through witnesses Shahzad Yousuf, Gul Zaman and Farhan Ali. After completing the formalities, he conducted the identification parade. PW Shahzad identified accused Abdul Ghaffar. PW Gul Zaman could not identify accused Abdul Ghaffar. Thereafter, PW Farhan was called, he identified accused Abdul Ghaffar. Memo of the identification parade was prepared.
Thereafter 10 produced accused Muhammad Amir Qureshi, having his face muffled. PW Shahzad Yousuf identified the accused and stated that he had received ransom from PW Gul Chaman in his presence. PW Farhan also identified accused Muhammad Amir Qureshi produced accused Rana Khalid Mehmood with muffled face. He was identified by. PW Shahzad Yousuf, PW Chaman did not identify him. PW Farhan identified him.
1.0. Produced suspect Muhammad Ayaz alias Vicky for the identification parade, PW Shahzad Yousuf identified him, PW Gul Zaman also identified him. PW Farhan also identified him. In the cross-examination he had denied the suggestion that complaint was made before him that PWs had already seen the accused in the police van before holding the identification parade.
23. PW-9 Inspector. Muhammad Babar has stated that he had conducted investigation of Crime No.919/2009 under Sections 365-A/34, P.P.C. Of P.S. Korangi Industrial Area and four FIRs of 13(d)
Arms Ordinance bearing Crimes Nos.97/2009 to 200/2009 of P.S. AVCC, Which were offshoot of the main case. Initial investigation was carried out by SIP Ali Mohammad, thereafter, investigation was entrusted to him. On completion of the investigation, he submitted challan against the accused.
Investigation Officer has stated that PW Shahzad Yousuf had identified the accused persons before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, presently said PW Shahzad Yousuf was not traceable: He has stated that on the orders of this Court case was reinvestigated by DSP Siraj Lashari and he recommended for the release of the accused persons. He submitted, such report before the Anti- Terrorism Court-I Karachi. By that time, accused were released. Complainant Nasir Mehmood challenged the order of High Court before the Honourable Supreme Court and order of this Court was set aside and the case was returned to the ATC and N.B.Ws. Were issued, against absconding accused and he arrested accused only Abdul Ghaffar Ansari, accused Rana Khalid Mehmood was already in Jail in some other case. Rest of the accused could not be arrested by him. In the cross- examination he has denied the suggestion that he has submitted challan against the accused at the instance of SIP, Ali Muhammad. He has also denied the suggestion for deposing falsely against the accused at the instance a his fr superiors.
24. From the close scrutiny of the evidence we have come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants/ accused for the reasons that abductee Farhan has categorically stated that on 29.10.2009 at 08:00 p.m. He was present at his office, Nasir Mehmood gave him the key of his car and Mobile number of a person and asked him to pick up said person from Chamra Chowrangi Farhan proceeded there and established a contact on a mobile and reached at the place where said guests were standing. He parked his car at that time three persons got down from another car overpowered him and forcibly made Farhan to sit in the car.
One of the accused persons drove the car for about one hour and stopped it. Farhan was detained by the accused persons in a room at some unknown place 3/4 persons visited Farhari where he was detained P.W. Farhan has deposed that accused persons arranged his contact on mobile with Nasir Mehmood and informed him about his abduction for ransom and demanded Rs.20 lacs for his release. After 3/4 hours of such talk Farhan had deposed that accused informed him that they were going to release him. Thereafter, he was released in a taxi and dropped at Sher Shah where his father along with one employee was standing. After a few days of his release police visited his home and he pointed out place from where he was kidnapped. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of the mashirs. P.W Farhan has further stated that he had appeared before Civil Judge and J.M. Where during identification he had identified four accused persons in the identification parade. He has clearly deposed that accused Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid present in the Court were same. He did not implicate accused Moeen Ayub Mirza. P.W Farhan was cross- examined at length but no reply favourable to the accused came on record. Nothing has been brought on record to show that P.W Farhan had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Evidence of Farhan who is abductee in this case appears to be natural, trustworthy, coherent and confidence inspiring. We have no reason to disbelieve his evidence. P.W Gul Chaman the father of abductee has stated that his son was working with complainant Nasir Mehmood. He was told by complainant that he had sent Farhan in a car to pick up his guests from Chamrah Chowrangi. Thereafter, Farhan was abducted and accused made demand of Rs.20 lacs for his release. Lastly, deal was finalized in the sum of Rs.250,000/- P.W. Gul Chaman categorically stated that on 30.10.2009 complainant gave him Rs.250,000/- as ransom for the accused persons.
Thereafter, P.W. Gul Chaman along with P.W Shahzad after establishing contact with accused reached at pointed place and paid ransom for the release of his son. P.W. Gul Chaman has deposed that present accused were not same and he had identified two accused persons before Civil Judge and J.M. To whom he paid ransom. They were not present in the Court. From the evidence of P.W Gul Chaman it appears that he has given the entire episode, in the end he has not implicated the accused persons but his entire evidence cannot be brushed aside and disbelieved because there were some ground realities. PW Gul Chaman was not in such position to take risk of abduction of his son once again. Complainant Nasir Mehmood has narrated entire facts that he had received business call and he sent Farhan a car to bring a person from Chamrah Chowrangi who wanted to purchase some articles from the complainant. When Farhan did not return back, the person claiming to be Sajid disclosed that Pathan has been abducted for ransom. Such information was shared by complainant to Gul Chaman, the father of Farhan. After finalization of the deal in Rs.250,000/- amount was handed over by complainant to P.W Shahzad and Gul Chaman for payment to the culprits for release of the abductee. Syed Khawaja Moeenuddin Sub Inspector intercepted blue car beating Registration No. AMR-582 on-13.11.2009, arrested accused Abdul Ghaffar and Rana Khalid and conducted their personal search in presence of the mashirs and from accused Abdul Ghaffar recovered one 12 bore repeater No.A-4463AFAC and three live cartridges and from accused Rana Khalid Mehmood unlicensed repeater No.4284-FSC containing four live cartridges was recovered for which both accused had no licenses. He brought both accused persons to the police station where he lodged separate FIRs against them under section 13(d) Arms Ordinances 1965. On 18.11.2009, I.O. Collected mobile data of sim of absconding accused Aijaz alias Vicky and he obtained audio C D containing conversation of accused and complainant in respect of ransom for the release of abductee from the office of CPLC. I.O. Has deposed that reinvestigation was ordered by the High Court but orders of this Court were set aside by Honourable Supreme Court. Evidence of the I.O. Regarding recovery of the unlicensed repeaters and car used in the crime corroborates the ocular account furnished by complainant and abductee Farhan. There is nothing on record to show the 1.0. Had mala fide or enmity with accused persons to foist repeaters upon them. Repeaters were recovered from personal search of accused, therefore, provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been violated. Despite lengthy cross examination, no dent in the prosecution case has been pointed out to discredit such huge prosecution evidence. As regards to the contention for learned counsel for appellants that accused Moen Ayub has been acquitted by the Trial Court and on the same evidence appellants have been convicted. Prosecution case has become doubtful. We are unable to agree with learned defense counsel for the reasons that acquitted co-accused Moen Ayub was not implicated by abductee Farhan and other material witnesses and his acquittal would not furnish sufficient ground for acquittal of the appellants for the reasons that natural and confidence inspiring evidence of abductee Farhan has come on record in which appellants have been implicated. P.W Farhan has categorically stated that he was kidnapped for ransom. So far evidence of P.W Gul Chaman is concerned it is settled law, that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused notwithstanding acquittal of co-accused person, his conviction can be maintained. It is elementary principle of law that it is the duty of the court to separate the, 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 evidence, has been found to be deficient to prove the it of other accused persons. The learned trial Court has rightly differentiated accused in this case and appreciated evidence in its true prospective and believed prosecution, evidence by assigning sound reasons. Accused Abdul Ghaffar in a question what else he has to say has replied that he has been implicated in this case falsely by complainant Nasir Mehmood who has money dispute with accused Moeen Ayub but no documentary proof with regard to such money dispute has been brought on record. Accused Abdul Ghaffar has failed to lead evidence in defense. He has also declined to give evidence on oath in disproof of prosecution allegations. The same defence plea has been raised by appellant Rana Khalid Mehmood, It has not been substantiated by producing evidence in defense. We therefore, hold that defence theory appears to be after thought. Moreover, it was not raised during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, defence theory is not acceptable. As regards to contention of learned counsel for the appellants that allegation regarding payment of ransom has not been proved as no adequate evidence, has been produced by the prosecution. In order to appreciate such contention, for the sake of convenience section 365-A, P.P.C., is produced as under:-- "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 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 We have perused the evidence of the complainant, P.W. Gul Chaman, abductee Farhan and other witnesses. Complainant has deposed that he paid Rs.250,000/- to P.W Gul Chaman, the father of abductee, for payment as ransom to the accused persons. P.W Gul Chaman has deposed that he had paid ransom of Rs.250,000/- to the accused persons but stated not to the present appellants. Abductee Farhan has categorically stated that he was kidnapped for ransom and he was told by the accused persons that they had received ransom thereafter he was released.
Therefore, we hold that sufficient evidence has been brought on record that abductee Farhan was kidnapped for the purpose of extorting money and offence for kidnapping for ransom is proved.
Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of section 365-A, .P.P.C. And section 2(n) of ATA 1997 it is obvious 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 abduction is extortion of money or ransom is demanded for the release of abductee. Complainant, P.W Gul Chaman and abductee have deposed that demand for ransom was made and it was paid by P.W Gul Chaman. We therefore, hold that ingredients of offence of kidnapping for ransom are fully satisfied/proved in this case. Law has been enunciated by Honourable Supreme Court for appreciation of evidence in the cases of the kidnapping for ransom. 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 in secured. 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."
26. Looking to the peculiar circumstances and keeping in view the object of law for which it has been enacted, this Court is satisfied from prosecution evidence that offence of kidnapping for ransom has been committed by appellants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Muhammad Khalid Mehmood alias Rana in the manner as alleged by prosecution. 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 in it's true perspective. Learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and judgment of Trial Court dated 26th August 2013, requires no interference. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.