Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, J.--Through this judgment we intend to dispose of above titled criminal appeal filed by appellant Sher Muhammad alias Shero against his conviction and sentence. He was tried in case FIR. No. 09 dated 15.1,2015 registered under Section 365-A, PPC & under Section 7 of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Rohilanwali, District Muzaf farga rh by learned Judge, Anti-T errorism, D.G.Khan vide judgment dated 28.4.2016 and convicted as under:--
1. Convicted WS. 365-A, PPC and sentenced to Imprisonment for life with forfeiture of his immovable property .
2. Convicted u/S. 7(e) of Anti T errorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to Imprisonment for life.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-H Cr .P.C.
2. Facts of the case as narrated by Ghulam Farid, complainant (PW-3) in his complaint Exh.P A addressed to the SHO, Police Station Rohilanwali were that on 13.1.2015 his nephew Mukhtiar Hussain found a pamphlet of job on road near Qasba Wasenday Wall. Mukhtia r Hussain was having a diploma of B.Sc Electrical Engineer . He took that job advertisement (pamphlet). According to complainant his poor nephew was in search of job for the last two years so in order to try his luck he in the presence of PWs Imtiaz Hussain and Tariq Javed went on the address printed in the said job advertisement. Later on, he did not come up and when contacted on his mobile phone (number not mentioned) that too was off. Complainant showed his apprehension that someone had abducted his nephew Mukhtiar Hussain. On this application the local police registered the above said F.I.R. on 15.1.2015 at 10:05 a.m. vide Rapt No. 9.
3. On the evening of 15.1.2015 complainant received phone call of unknown person demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- for release of his nephew . However , bargaining was struck on Rs. 4,00,000/-. Finally after 17/18-days of the incident complainant in the presence of PWs Imtiaz Hussain and Tariq Javed paid Rs. 4,00,000/- to the appellant in the area of Fort Munro. According to the statement of complainant on 12.5.2015 he alongwith abductee Mukhtiar Hussain identified the accused Sher Muhammad alias Shero in Police Station Saddar , Muzaf fargarh who was already under custody in another case. They duly nominated the appellant as one of the culprits.
4. Investigation of this case was conducted by different police officers including PW-4 Rana Ghulam Asghar , S.I, PW-6 Ghulam Shabbir , S.I. and finally PW-7 Ch. Javed Akhtar , Inspector/SHO of Police Station Khangarh. In this case appellant was arrested on 12.5.20 17. On 12.5.2015 he was led to recover the ransom amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- from the house of co-accused Dr. Fayyaz Sial (since P.O.) vide recovery memo. Exh.PD. On 24.5.2015 one Bakhat Ali relative of appellant produced Rs. 25,000/- as ransom amount to the police vide recovery memo.
Exh, PE. In this way total amount of Rs,2,25,000/- was recovered from the present appellant during investigation.
In order to prove the charge prosecution got examined seven witnesses in all. On 24,3.2016 learned ADPP closed the prosecution evidence after giving up PWs Imtiaz Hussain and Tariq Javed being unnecessary .
5. Thereafter statements of accused unde r Section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the charge and claimed his innocence.
6. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties recorded the conviction and awarded sentence to the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that impugned judgment is against law and facts of the case; that prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 365-A, PPC as no ransom amount was demanded by the appellant nor the same was passed on to anyone; that after release on 30.1.2015 alleged abductee did not record his statement before the police rather remained mum for a considerable delay and in this regard prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible explanation; that there is no CDR data available on record to verify that it was the present appellant who called the complainant on his cell number for ransom money; that the statements of prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other; that on the same set of evidence co-accused Dr. Fiaz was acquitted from the charges by the trial Court and that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced.
8. Conversely learned law officer while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that appellant is involved in heinous offence; he is not liable to any leniency; that learned trial Court after scrutinizing the entire record and evidence produced has rightly recorded conviction of the appellant which is not open to any exception.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. The star witness of this case was Mukhtiar Hussain, abductee. While appearing before the Court at PW-5 he categorically stated that on 13.1.2015 at 10.30 a.m. he departed from his house and reached Adda Lohar Wala. He was waiting the Bus going to Muzaf fargarh City when all of a sudden a Dalla came there in which three persons were present including present appellant. They offered him to sit in the Dalla as they were also going on the same side. According to the abductee (PW-5) as soon as Dalla reached near City Muzaf fargarh the present appellant alongwith his companions on gun point abducted him and took him to prohibited area where he was detained for 17/18 days. During this period accused persons established contact with his relatives through his mobile phone and demanded ransom amount for his release. Later on, after paying Rs. 4,00,000/- to the accused he was released on 30.1.2015. PW-5 further stated that as his health was not in good condition so he could not record his statement immediately after coming to his home. As per record on 24.2.2015 he appeared before the Investigating Officer/PW -6 alongwith relatives including his uncle Ghulam Farid (complainant), Tariq Javed and Imtiaz (given up PWs). Before the Investigating Officer abdjuctee in clear words stated that it was the present appellant who received ransom amount of 4,00,000/- from his relatives and this fact was further fortified by PW-6/I.O. in his statement before the Court on 24.2.2016. So far as receiving of ransom amount by the present appellant statements of PW -3 and PW -5 were consistent.
11. We have also gone through the statement of PW-7 Ch. Javed Akhtar , Inspector/I.O. According to him on 12.5.2015 investigation of this case was entrusted to him by order of D.P.O., Muzaf fargarh. He associated the complainant (PW-3) and abductee (PW-5) with the investigation. Present appellan t was already under custody in Police Station Qureshi in another case vide F.I.R No. 158/2015 of similar nature. During interrogation appellant led to recovery of ransom amount total Rs. 2,25,000/- in two parts vide recovery memo. Exh.PD and Exh.PE duly attested by the complainant as well as abductee. In the investigation PW -7/I.O. found the appellant guilty .
12. From the overall analysis of prosecution witnesses it is evident that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the present appellant beyond any pale of doubt. During trial defence has failed to prove any enmity , or grudge against the appellant to falsely implicate him. The finding recorded by the trial Court is in line with evidence produced by the prosecution. We did not find any valid reason to reverse the impugned judgment which is otherwise based on sound reasoning. Consequently , we find no merits in this criminal appeal which is hereby dismissed.