' ERUM SAJAD GULL, J.---The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore whereby the appellants were tried in case FIR,No,342 dated 03.03.2012 under section 363, P.P.C. (Later on Section 365-A, P.P.C. Was added vide Zimni No,4), registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-- "Accused Muhammad Naeem, Muhammad Parvaiz and Maqsoodan Bibi are convicted and sentenced under section 365-A, P.P.C., each, to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of their property.
The act of the accused also created fear and sense of insecurity in general public, therefore, they are also convicted and sentenced under section 7(e) of ATA, 1997, each to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of their property. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., shall be given to each convict."
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR were reiterated by the complainant Muhammad Yar (PW.3) in his statement before the learned trial court are reproduced as under:-- "Around three months before my son Abu Zar went missing. I reported the matter to police through written application Ex.PA which contains my thumb impression. I had also been receiving phone calls. Police through telephone numbers traced accused persons and also recovered Abu Zar from accused Maqsoodan Bibi. We were called by the police at Police Station. Police also informed us that Naeem accused present in court is also involved in this matter. Police asked us to prove Rs,2- Lac for the purpose of recovery but I could not arrange Rs,2-Lac and only arranged Rs, One Lac and handed over the same to police. (At this stage learned PP requests that PW is concealing the facts, he be declared hostile and be allowed to be cross-examined. Request is allowed).
3. After registration of the case the police proceeded with the investigation. On completion of the investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the-trial court. Learned trial court after observing all the legal formalities provided under the Criminal Procedure Code framed the charge on 15.05.2012 against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty, thereafter the trial commenced. PW-2, To prove its case the prosecution produced eight witnesses. Rasheed Ahmad, SI as PW-1, Matloob Sajid 6272/ HC as Muhammad Yar/complainant as Nawaz, SI as PW-4, Zulfiqar Hussain, SI as PW-5, Khalid Mehmood as PW-6, Muhammad Aslam as PW-7, Abdul Ghafoor, Inspector as PW-8. Learned Public Prosecutor gave up PWs Asgher Masih 13091/C, Abdul Rehman 7432/C and Syed Imtiaz Hussain Inspector as being unnecessary. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
5. The statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who refuted the allegations levelled against them and opted not to appear as their own witness under section 340(2), Cr. P . C . Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.
6. In reply to the question "Why this case was registered against you and why the witnesses have deposed against you?
' The appellant Muhammad Naeem alias Neemon replied as under:-- "I am innocent. The complainant Yar Muhammad is my real maternal uncle who inherited 32-acres agricultural land from his father Dost Muhammad. He got transferred whole of the land in his name fraudulently by depriving his real sister Shahida/my mother. Muhammad Aslam is husband of sister-in-law of Yar Muhammad complainant whereas Muhammad Khalid is brother of his wife (SALA). I have been roped in this case by Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Aslant and Muhammad Khalid to pressurize my mother to desist from demanding her share of land. Due to above said dispute an altercation had taken place between me and PWs Muhammad Aslam and Khalid Mehmood. Due to above said reason they have falsely deposed against me. In fact, I am innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. Rest of witnesses are police officials and they have deposed against me on the instructions of his superiors in connivance with Muhammad Aslam and Khalid Mehmood PWs to strengthen the prosecution case."
' The appellant Maqsoodan Bibi replied as under:-- "The main accused Muhammad Naeem had close relationship with the complainant Muhammad Yar. He has serious grievance about the property with his Mamoon. Due to this grudge they falsely involved me in this fake and factious case."
' The appellant Muhammad Parvaiz alias Peja replied as under:-- "I was falsely implicated in this case by the police on the asking of complainant of the case due to suspicion."
7. After conclusion of the trial learned trial court convicted the appellants with above stated sentences herein this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that:-
(i) the judgment of the trial court dated 19.10.2012 is against law and facts. The same is liable to be set aside;
(ii) the story of the prosecution is improbable and not believable;
(iii) the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and the learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellants in surmises and conjectures;
(iv) and lastly submitted for the acceptance of the appeal of the appellants; .
9. On the other hand, learned DPP has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that:-- Prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellants with solid evidence and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned DPP and perused the record.
11. The complainant Muhammad Yar (PW-3) whose minor son Abu Zar was allegedly abducted for ransom by the appellants has not supported the prosecution version and on the request of the Public Prosecutor (P.P) he was declared hostile. The complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that the police summoned him to the Police Station and demanded Rs,2,00,000/- for the recovery of his minor son but only Rs,1,00,000/- could be arranged by him which was then handed over to the police for the recovery of his minor son. In his cross-examination the complainant stated that he later nominated the appellants on the direction of the police and while nominating the appellants asked the police why they had asked him to implicate his family members. The complainant in his cross-examination stated that he had not accompanied the police when his minor son was recovered from the appellants and he handed the alleged ransom money to the police and not to the alleged abductors/ appellants, further stated that his nephew accompanied the police to recover his minor son.
12. Khalid Mehmood P.W-6 and Muhammad Aslam P.W-7 stated that they with the complainant accompanied the police to recover the minor son of the complainant and themselves handed over the ransom amount to the appellants. Both these prosecution witnesses were confronted with their statements recorded to the police under section 161, Cr.P.C., Exh.DB and Exh.DC which were not in line with their statements recorded before the trial court. The investigating officer Abdul Ghafoor, Inspector who appeared as P.W-8 in his cross-examination stated that none of the witnesses had specifically named the accused to whom they handed over the alleged ransom amount.
Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the name of the accused who demanded the ransom amount. It is evident that the complainant is the main affectee of the case in hand as his minor son was allegedly abducted by the appellants but he has denied the prosecution case hence proving the said case false.
13. Allegedly some ransom money was recovered separately from all the three appellants but the recovered currency notes are not marked. Matloob Sajid, Head-constable who appeared as P.W-2 in his cross-examination stated that neither the alleged recovered currency notes nor the recovered mobile phone were sealed in a parcel and were lying in three separate bags. There is no detail of the house from where the alleged minor was recovered even there is no document on record to prove the ownership of the said house. No independent witnesses were made to join the recovery proceedings regarding the recovery of the alleged minor from the appellants or the currency notes allegedly recovered from the appellants. The alleged abductee minor did not appear as a witness before the trial court though the investigating Officer Abdul Ghafoor, Inspector (P.W-8) stated that on 15.3.2012 he recorded the statement of the abductee Abu Zar Ali. By not producing the abductee before the trial court, casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version.
14. As observed above the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and conviction on such unreliable evidence cannot be upheld.
15. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in case titled as "Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others" (2014 SCM R 749) that even a single doubt created in the prosecution case which was reasonable would warrant the acquittal of the appellant.
18(sic) For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is accepted. The convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Lahore vide judgment dated 19.10.2012 are hereby set aside. Appellants are directed to be acquitted from the charge in case FIR No,342 dated 03.03.2012 under section 363, P.P.C. (Later on Section 365-A, P.P.C.
Was added vide Zimni No,4), registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. The appellant (Mst.
Maqsoodan Bibi) be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other case. Muhammad Naeem alias Neemon and Muhammad Pervaiz alias Peja are present on bail. Their sureties are discharged from their liabilities.