' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---This appeal arises from the judgment. Dated 2.2.2012, whereby learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Gujranwala convicted Ashfaq alias Bhola and Imtiaz Ahmad alias Ishtiaq alias Shaki (appellants) under section 365-A and section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life each thereunder. Their properties were ordered to be forfeited by the state. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them. Their co-accused Nadir Khan was, however acquitted of the charge on extension of benefit of doubt. It all happened on conclusion of their trial in a private complaint-case, filed by Ch. Muhammad Arshad (cornplainant/P.W.6) for an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as narrated by Ch. Muhammad Arshad complainant (P.W.6) in the FIR (Exh.PF) is that he lived in Italy for years to earn the livelihood; he returned to Pakistan about two months before; he went to Islamabad to see his cousin Muqaddas Abbas (P.W.7) on 25.5.2011, who told him that he would go to his village Jatri to fetch some revenue record from the Patwari- halqa, so he should accompany him; they both left Islamabad at about 4.00 p.m. On 265.2011 for the said village; it was at about 7.00 p.m. When they reached Lala Musa, where Muqaddas Abbas (P.W.7) collected some amount of money through an ATM machine, whereafter they reached Ganja Phatak at about 7.30 p.m., which was near the house of Muqaddas Abbas; on reaching the said place Muqaddas Abbas asked him to stay there and said that he would be back after ten minutes, but he did not return even after half an hour, whereon he went to the house and office of the patwari, who fold him that Muqaddas Abbas had not visited him; he made a phone-call to Muqaddas Abbas on his cell-phone (0300-5071100) but it was found turned-off; he along with many others started searching for the missing soul and also informed the local police telephonically in this regard; he received a phone call at 12.45 a.m. On 27.5.2011 on his cell-phone (0332-0410176) and 2/3 .Persons talked to him, who demanded ransom of rupees one crore (Rs,1,00,00,0000 and threatened that they would murder Muqaddas Abbas if their demand was not met with; the callers/accused also let Muqaddas Abbas talked to him, who asked him to manage and pay the ransom amount to the accused, otherwise they would kill him. He moved an application (Exh.PE) to the S.H.O., police station Saddar Lala Musa (Gujrat), on 27.5.2011 for registration of case against the unknown accused, on the basis of which Muhammad Anwar Inspector/SI-IO (P.W.4). Drew up formal FIR (Exh.PF) at 3.00 p.m., the same day.
3. After registration of the case, its investigation was entrusted to Shabbir Hussain SI (P.W.9) on 27.5.2011, who inspected the place of occurrence/abduction and prepared visual site-plan (Exh.P1) about it; he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant on 30.5.2011, in which he nominated Ashfaq accused (appellant); he proceeded to the office of DPO Gujranwala on 31.5.2011 and got issued a letter regarding the data of above-said cell-number and also moved an application for appointment of Joint Investigation Team; the complainant informed him at 2.00 a.m. On 1.6:2011 that the abductee had been found by the motorway police near Sial Mour; on receipt of this information, he along with Naveed Ahmad constable and the complainant proceeded to the office of motorway police, where the abductee produced before him a written subject, which he rendered into his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.; he also recorded the motorway police officials under section 161, Cr.P.C.; a car bearing registration No,5787-LWL Vitz blue colour along with a rope was handed over to him, which he took into possession vide memo of recovery Exh.PG; thereafter, investigation into the crime was handed over to Ishtiaq Masood Inspector, Incharge/Joint Investigation Team, on 3.6.2011.
' The complainant (P.W.6) being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the investigators, filed a private complaint (Exh.PH) on 25.6.2011 against the accused, Safdar Hussain (PO), Tasaddaq Hussain alias Mithu (PO), Nadir Khan (since acquitted), Ishtiaq alias Shaki (appellant), Ashfaq alias Bhola (appellant) and Riaz Ahmad (PO) on the same facts, as alleged in the FIR with the addition ' that after his recovery, the abductee Muqaddas Abbas told him that he had been abducted by Safdar Hussain, Tasaddaq Hussain and two unknown persons, whereafter lshtiaq alias Shaki and Ashfaq alias Bhola (appellants) took him to the confinement-cell where they confined him; Nadir Khan accused (since acquitted) occasionally visited the said place; the accused often. Contacted Riaz Ahmad accused (since PO) telephonically; they were taking the abductee to some other place at Sham Vela on 31.5.2011 on a vehicle, which had to be stopped by them as its tyre got punctured; on arrival of the motorway police, the accused decamped by leaving behind the abductee; the motorway police took control of the abductee and seized the crime-car; the accused were found not involved in the occurrence by the police during investigation, which prompted the complainant to file the said private complaint (Exh.PH).
4. Learned trial court after necessary proceedings under sections 200, 202, Cr.P.C. Summoned all the accused (respondents therein), including the appellants to face the trial. The private complaint was taken up first 'by the learned trial court for trial of the accused.
5. On indictment, the appellants and their acquitted co-accused Nadir Khan pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial: The prosecution produced nine witnesses, namely Abid Hussain HC Motorway police (P.W.1), Tauqeer Abbas, SI Motorway (P.W.2), Nadeem Iqbal ASI (P.W.3), Muhammad Anwar Inspector (P.W.4), Muhammad Ejaz SI Motorway (P.W.5), Ch. Muhammad Arshad (complainant/P.W.6), Muqaddas Abbas anductee (P.W.7), Hasnat Ali Shah, SP (P.W.8) and Shabbir Hussain SI/IO (P.W.9) to prove the charge against them. Thereafter, they were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., whereby they proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter. The appellant, Ashfaq alias Bhola while answering the question why this case against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, stated as under:-- ' "I have been falsely involved in this ease along with my co-accused Safdar Hussain, Tassadaq Hussain alias Mithu, Nadir Khan, Ishtiaq alias Shaki Riaz Ahmed and are innocent in this case. I have been falsely involved in this case along with co-accused mentioned above by the complainant (PW6) with ulterior motive and with the active connivance of Muqaddas Abbas PW7 alleged abductee who are related inter se and are inimical towards me and my co-accused direct to previous civil and criminal litigations with my family. The background for false implication of this case is that father of Muqaddas Abbas (PW7) alleged abductee sold his land measuring 44 Kanals situated in village Jatrian Kalan to Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asghar sons of Abdul Ghani, Caste Gujjar RIO Jatrian Kalan and mutation No,1151 dated 23.09.2004 was sanctioned in favour of above said vendees. The certified copy of the same is presented as Exh.DA.
Later on my brothers Abid Hussain and Riaz (co-accused) purchased the above mentioned land from the vendees i.e, Muhammad Arif and Asghar Ali vide mutation No,1214-1216 dated 08.11.2007.
The certified copies of the same are presehted as Exh.DB and Exh. DC. Rukhsar Ahmed son of Sher Muhammad, RIO Sukh Chanan, Tehsil Kharian who is Phuphizad of Muqaddas Abbas PW7 alleged abductee, prepared ante-dated forged sale agreement and filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of said agreement regarding the above mentioned land measuring 44 Kanals in Civil Court Kharian District Gujrat on 25.10.2007 against said Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Asghar.
The certified copy of the same is presented as Exh.DD. Rukhsar Ahmad when came to know that the above mentioned land measuring 44 Kanals had been purchased by my real brothers Riaz Ahmad (co-accused) and Abid Hussain, then he filed an amended plaint against Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Asghar and my real brothers namely Riaz Ahmad and Abid Hussain. The certified copy of the same is presented as Exh.DE. The civil suit is still pending in the Court of Madam Farkhanda Ashraf Awan, learned Civil Judge, Kharian District Gujrat and next date of hearing is fixed for .25.01.2012, the certified copy of the order-sheet is presented as Exh.DF. Muhammad Arshad S/o Afzal Hussain who is real Khalazad of Muqaddas Abbas PW7 (alleged abductee) got registered this false FIR No,139/2011 dated 27.05.2011 under section 365-A, P.P.C. ,at P.S. Sadar Lala Musa against me and my co-accused mentioned above only to pressurize us and to get back the above said land from my real brothers. During investigation, I and my co-accused produced their defence before the I.O. In shape of documents and oral evidence which was found to be correct and he found the case to be false and baseless and recommended for cancellation. Cancellation report of the above said case under section 173, Cr. P. C. Was prepared on 11.06.2011 by the SHO P.S. Sadar Lala Musa and it was submitted in competent court of law for judicial verdict. The certified copy of the same is presented as 5xh.DG. Learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court-I. Gujranwala accepted Cancellation report vide order dated 10.09.2011. The certified copy of the same is presented as Exh. DH. My co-accused Riaz is residing in abroad in Dubai (UAE) since 28.04.2011.
Certified copy of affidavit of co-accused Riaz Ahmad duly attested by High Commission Consulate General Dubai as well as Ministry of Foreign Affair, Lahore Exh.DI along with attested copy of his Passport No, KG878363 containing his travel history are presented as Exit Exh.D.J. As such my co-accused Safder Hussain is also residing in abroad in Sharjah (UAE) since 29.12.2010.
Certified copy of affidavit of co-accused Safdar S/0 Nadir Khan duly attested by High Commission Consulate General Dubai as well as Ministry of Foreign Affairs Islamabad Exh.DK along with attested copy of his Passport No,KG878363 containing his travel history Exit are presented as Exh.DL. The certified copy of FIR No,126/11, dated 11.05.2011, under sections 435/337-112/148/149/109, P.P. C. P.S. Saddar Lala Musa Exh. DM, certified copy of FIR No,198/11 dated 09.07.2011, under sections 410/324/148/149, P.P.C., PS. Lala Musa Exh.DN, and certified copy of FIR No,300/2011, dared 17.09.2011, under sections 440/148/149 P.P.C., Sadar Lala Musa District Gujrat Exh.D0 are presented which were falsely got registered by the complainant party of this case against me and my co-accused etc."
' Imtiaz Ahmad alias Ishtiaq alias Shaki (appellant) and Nadir Khan (since acquitted) adopted the answer, almost in ditto, as given by Ashfaq alias Bhola (appellant) to the aforesaid question, when they deposed under section 342, Cr.P.C. All of them opted not to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor they adduced any evidence in their defence.
5.(sic) Learned trial court concluded trial of the appellants through the impugned judgment by holding them guilty of the charge and awarded them the sentence, in mentioned terms.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution case is filled with countless discrepancies and inconsistencies, which had been grossly overlooked by the learned trial court, when it pronounced the impugned judgment; the story narrated by the complainant as to abduction of Muqaddas Abbas (P.W.7) was found false during the course of investigation, as admitted by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses in their testimonies; the motorway police officials who allegedly recovered the abductee from an abandoned punctured car, did not say a word if the abductee disclosed the abductors names to them; the glaring discrepancies of the case have grossly been ignored while recording findings of guilt against the appellants, which only showed poor understanding of the law, besides non-reading, and misreading of the evidence by the trial court; the impugned judgment is a. Product of conjectural and whimsical thoughts of the learned trial judge, which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, hence, may it be set aside.
7. On the contrary, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has supported the impugned judgment by contending that minor contradictions may commonly be found in every other case and the instant matter is no exception, but it may not be considered a fallible case, as it is free from major contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts. He maintained that the prosecution fully proved the charge against the appellants beyond all shadows of doubt, hence, the impugned judgment may be sustained.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it is straightaway found to be a case hit by many an improbabilities and inconsistencies. Although it was made sure by the prosecution that the abductee of this case Muqaddas Abbas (P. W.7) appeared before the trial court to tender evidence and depose about the circumstances in relation to his alleged abduction and confinement at a secret place by the accused, including the appellants, yet they overlooked a crucial aspect of the case, which related to the evidence of some of the motorway police-officials, including Muhammad Ijaz SI (P.W.5) and Hasnat Ali Shah SPO (P.W.8), who despite having recovered the abductee from an abandoned car with deflated wheels, did not say a word as to the names of the abductors, if told to them by the abductee or not. Their statements when considered in juxtaposition to the statement of the complainant (P.W.6) and the abductee (P.W.7) lend a strong impression that they both, the complainant and the abductee named the captors belatedly and offered no explanation as to why it was not so disclosed by the abductee, immediately on his recovery by the said witnesses, at motorway police camp office at Sial Mour, which was at a distance of eight kilometers from Pindi Bhattian Interchange. The evidence led by the prosecution does not resolve the riddle as to why the abductee had tightened his lips before the motorway police and not hinted at involvement of the accused/appellants or any other specific person in the crime alleged, and why did he distort the facts to assert, when he reached police station Sadar Lala Musa, there he rendered a statement, which entailed the story of his abduction, confinement, demand of ransom Rs,1,00,00,000/-, his shifting to some other place in the evening on 31.5.2011 and leaving him behind with tied hands, feet and gagged mouth by the accused before having been spotted and recovered by the motorway police. The contention of the abducted person as well as that of Muhammad Arshad (complainant/P.W.6) about the aforesaid factum of making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. On their return-journey to the said police station is directly negated by Shabbir Hussain, SI (P.W.9), the investigating officer of this case, who categorically stated in his testimony that he reached the office of motorway police, Sial Mour along with the complainant where he found Maqaddas Abbas abductee in the company of the motorway police- officials, who had effected his recovery. He recorded statement of the complainant under section 161, Cr.P.C. And received a written/computerized statement from the abductee, duly signed by him, which he reproduced under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded similar sort of statement of the motorway police-officials and received from them a blue colour car, Vitz bearing registration No,LWL-5787 as case-property and started travelling back with the abductee and others.
9. The investigating officer did not say a word, unlike the contention of the complainant and the abductee that computerized statement of the abductee had been prepared by him or any other police-official. The witnesses belonging to the motorway police did not take the responsibility of preparing the said computerized .Statement of the abductee. If so, the presentation of a written statement by the abductee before Shabbir Hussain SI (P.W.9) makes a crucial circumstance, which reflected on the truthfulness of the story of his abduction by the accused and recovery by the motorway police. He appeared to have possessed the said computerized statement even before he was recovered, which led to a strong probability that it had been previously fabricated by him as a part of the plan, master-minded by him and the complainant so as to involve the accused in this conspiratorial-case. The investigation conducted on 31.5.2011 by Shabbir Hussain SI (P.W.9) at camp office of the motorway police virtually brought the prosecution case crashing, down to earth.
The complainant (P.W.6) and the abductee (P.W.7) probably grasped adverse effect of the folly of submitting a computerized signed statement before the investigating officer (P.W.9), hence, they B rearranged their cards and improved upon their previous contentions in regard thereto and deposed that the computerized statement of the abductee had been prepared at police station Saddar Lala Musa, but they badly failed to repair the damage done.
10. The abductee (P.W.7) while narrating the story of his abduction contended that the place where he had been forcibly lifted from by the accused consisted of four/five vacant plots and that the passage leading to the house of the patwari was not sidelined by the shops. The investigating officer (P.W.9) stated otherwise and categorically contended that there was no vacant plot at the place of abduction of Muqaddas Abbas (P.W.7) and that there were shops on both the sides of the walkway. The tenor of testimony of the abductee (P.W.7) does not look impressive at all nor does it so look the statement of the complainant (P. W.6). The firsthand information as to his abduction and abandonment by the appellants and their co-accused should have been, furnished by the abductee before Muhammad Ijaz, SI (P.W.5) and Hasnat Ali Shah, SPO (P.W.8), both of the motorway police, immediately on his recovery by them. Their testimonies are silent about the fact if the abductee had told them the names of his lifters. The abductee merely told them that some accused had left him at the said place five/seven minutes earlier. It is a matter of common observation and so admitted by the testifying officials of the motorway police, that there were iron fences on both sides of the motorway, which is an express highway,' whereon the vehicular traffic smoothly flows without any interuption from any side and it is not like an ordinary road, whereon one can signal a bus to stop and board it. It is strange that no one could see the accused in those five/seven minutes after they left the abductee high and dry on the motorway. The abductee (P.W.7) frankly admitted in his testimony that he did not raise alarm at the time of his abduction nor on any other occasion thereafter, despite he had been taken through more than one motorway toll-plaza by the accused. His 'exemplary' cooperation with the accused throughout the alleged stint is surprising and furnished yet another reason for the court to look at his tale inquisitively. It may be a fictional drama of abduction, abandonment and recovery of the abductee from different places but not a real story, as it may easily be smelt from the evidence tendered. The evidence of the complainant (P.W.6) and the abductee (P.W.7) does not look impressive or believable from any angle being illogical, fantastic and over-exaggerated, hence, brushed aside.
11. So far as the evidence of recovery of car (P1), rope (P2) and a parna (P3) vide seizure memo Exh.PG is concerned, it may have corroborated and given a sense of strength to the prosecution case, had the evidence of the abductee and the complainant stood the test of cross-examination, which they couldn't. It may be so that the abductee had his hands and legs tied with ropes and mouth gagged with a piece of cloth (parna) when he was spotted by the officials of the motorway police, but it could not be said with certainty, if it was the job done by a friend or a foe. To spend some more time in discussing the recovery evidence, may be an exercise in futility, hence, abstained from.
12. In a nutshell, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The impugned judgment does not contain a single element of plausibility or reasonableness and it merited annulment. Therefore, this appeal is accepted at the cost of the impugned judgment. The appellants' conviction/sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. Be released from the prison, if not required to be imprisoned in any other case.