MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Mst. Mahboob Bibi, Munir Ahmad, Khurshid Ahmed and Mst. Faiz Bibi (appellants) were indicted in case FIR No.852/2005 dated 05.12.2005 offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City A Division, Sheikhupura for abduction of Usman Hameed son of the complainant for the purpose of ransom. They faced trial before Additional Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court No.1, Lahore. Vide judgment dated 08.09.2006, Munir Ahmad (appellant No.2) was convicted under section 7(e) of A.T.A. read with section 365-A, P.P.C. and sentenced to death. His property was also ordered to be forfeited. Mst. Mahboob Bibi, Khurshid Ahmed and Mst. Faiz Bibi (appellants Nos.1, 3 and 4) were also convicted under section 7(e) of A.T.A. read with section 21(i) of A.T.A. and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their properties were also ordered to be forfeited in favour of the State. Munir Ahmad (appellant) preferred Crl. Appeal No.1372 of 2006 whereas a joint appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1535 of 2006) on behalf of all the convicts namely Khurshid Ahmed, Munir Ahmad, Mst. Faiz Bibi and Mst. Mehboob Bibi was also preferred. The learned trial court sent CSR No.45-T of 2006 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Munir Ahmad (convict). All these matters were heard together by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court. Through the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2007, appeals filed on behalf of the convicts were disposed of in the following terms:- "Munir Ahmad appellant stands convicted under section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death. He is also convicted under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to death.
His property is also ordered to be forfeited as already directed by the trial court.
Faiz Bibi, Mehboob Bibi and Khursheed Ahmad appellants are convicted under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
They are also convicted under section 7(e) read with section 21(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Their properties shall also be forfeited in favour of the State. It is further observed that their sentences of imprisonment on all the counts shall run concurrently."
2. As per prosecution story, Munir Ahmad (appellant) along with three nominated and three unknown persons came outside the house of the complainant in two cars and abducted Usman Hameed son of the complainant. Thereafter ransom was demanded and a bargain was struck through Khurshid Ahmad, Mst. Mahboob Bibi, Mst. Faiz Bibi (appellants) on mobile number of the complainant and upon payment of Rs.10,00,000/ (rupees ten lakh only) as ransom money, son of the complainant was released by the appellants.
3. Before proceeding further in this matter, it is to be noted that notice was issued to the complainant and according to Court Associate services of notice has been effected on the complainant, but none has entered appearance on his behalf. Therefore, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Prosecutor General and have gone through available record with their able assistance.
4. As per the prosecution, Usman Hameed was abducted on 01.12.2005 at about 04.00 p.m. but the FIR was got registered after four days i.e. 05.12.2005 at 03.30 p.m., therefore, there is a delay of four days in setting the machinery of law in motion. The complainant tried to explain the delay in reporting the crime to the Police by mentioning in the FIR that the appellants' side had threatened him that in that eventuality his son would be murdered but the said explanation does not appear to be plausible. While appearing before the learned trial court, the complainant was cross- examined on this aspect of the case and he stated as under:- "Zafar adv. My brother had also saw the occurrence along with other people. My brother Zafar adv. had told about this occurrence to the other advocates of Sheikhupura. I do not know that Zafar adv. had informed about this occurrence to the President of Bar Association Sheikhuputa. Ch. Wilayat adv. my counsel was also informed by us about this occurrence just after this occurrence. On 2.12.2005 the news regarding this occurrence was published in many newspapers. The news was published about this occurrence in Daily Jung dated 2.12.2005. Due to threat of accused I had not got registered the case on the day of this occurrence and till the recovery of Usman Hameed.
Police had contacted me on 3.12.2005 and I had asked, the Police that till the recovery of my son Usman Hameed I was not willing to start the criminal proceedings about this occurrence. I do not know whether police had taken any action prior to 5.12.2005 which is date of registration of this case, regarding this occurrence."
Therefore, explanation offered by the complainant in reporting the crime to the Police is not satisfactory and chances of deliberations, consultations and concoction of the prosecution story before setting the machinery of law in motion cannot be ruled out.
5. It is case of the prosecution in the FIR and both the witnesses of ocular account namely Haji Abdul Hameed complainant (PW.5) and Usman Hameed abductee (PW.6) stated before the learned trial court that said Usman Hameed was abducted from the place of occurrence in two vehicles and number of one vehicle was also disclosed. However, no vehicle was recovered during the course of investigation and even no investigation was conducted qua the owner of the vehicle of which number was disclosed in the FIR. During his cross-examination the complainant stated in unequivocal terms that both the cars were not recovered in this case. Therefore, the charge of abduction of Usman Hameed could not be substantiated at the trial.
6. It was also alleged by the complainant that ransom amount was demanded by the abductors through his cell phone number. No call data was produced before the learned trial court to establish whether any telephone calls were received at the mobile number of the complainant what to speak of the contents of the telephone calls, the persons in whose names the SIM cards used for demanding ransom were issued.
7. It is not the case of the prosecution that Usman Hameed was recovered from the appellants rather the complainant narrated in the FIR that after receiving the ransom amount his son had been released by the appellants' side. The complainant stated during his cross-examination that his son made a telephone call from some PCO and he alone went there in his vehicle for taking Usman Hameed to his home. Usman Hameed contradicted his father on this aspect of the case when he stated during his cross-examination that his father and Shiraz his brother had come to take him from the place of his release.
8. Both the learned courts below also relied upon the recoveries of certain articles belonging to the abductee at the instance of some of the appellants, firearms at the instance of Munir Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad (appellants) and recovery of part of ransom money. It is not safe to rely on these recoveries because so far as the articles allegedly belonging to the abductee are concerned no detail of any articles which the alleged abductee was carrying at the time of his abduction were disclosed in the FIR. This omission is fatal in the circumstances of the case when the machinery of law was set in motion after the recovery of Usman Hameed abductee and the complainant had also stated during his cross-examination that Usman Hameed had told him about the articles snatched from him by the accused. Recoveries of firearms at the instance of Munir Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad are also not of much help to the prosecution as no specific weapon was mentioned in the FIR and it was simply mentioned in the FIR that all the accused were armed with firearms. Giving of rupees ten lakh to the appellants' side was not proved by the complainant as no denomination of currency notes was disclosed either in the FIR or before the learned trial court. The complainant stated during his cross-examination that he had not drawn the said Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) from the Bank and explained that he got the said currency through Sarwar Virk and Company but in the same breath stated that Sarwar Virk and Company were not witnesses in this case. Therefore, when the factum of giving rupees ten lakh by the complainant for the release of his son is not proved the alleged recoveries of part of the ransom amount at the instance of the appellants are inconsequential and cannot be relied for maintaining conviction and sentence of the appellants on capital charges.
9. In view of the above, we hold that the prosecution case against the appellants is doubtful in nature. This appeal is accordingly allowed and while extending the benefit of doubt, all the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Munir Ahmad and Khursirid Ahmad (appellants) are in jail and they are ordered to be released forthwith (in this case) if not required to be detained in any other case. Mst. Mehboob Bibi and Mst. Fazeelat Bibi (appellants) are on bail and their sureties stand discharged from the liability of bail bonds.