KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J. The appellants, through captioned appeals, have challenged the judgment dated 18.01.2020 (impugned judgment) passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court XVI, Karachi in Special Case No. 140 of 2018 (Re-The State v. Mukhtiar Ahmed and others) emanating from FIR No. 38/2018 registered at PS Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi under sections 365-A and 34, P.P.C. read with sections 11/H and 11/N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA, 1997). Through the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- i. For offence of abduction for ransom, punishable under section 365-A read with 34, P.P.C. all the present accused are Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and their properties are ordered to be forfeited to the Government. ii. For Offence of wrongfully confining the abductee Muhammad Raheel Alam for 3 months 25 days, an offence punishable under section 344 read with 34, P.P.C. all the present accused are awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years each and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each or in default to pay fine, to undergo RI for 6 (six) months each. iii. For the offence of kidnapping of the abductee for ransom, keeping him hostage for 3 months 25 days, charging ransom of Rs.10.15 million and thereby committing an offence punishable under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 all the present accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. iv. All the present accused are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.200,000/- (two lacs) each to the victim/abductee as compensation on account of the mental anguish suffered by him during 3 months 25 days of his captivity, as provided under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. v. For offence of fund arrangement as defined in 11J of ATA, 1997 punishable under section 11N, ATA, 1997 all the present accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for term of six years each. vi. For offence of money laundering as defined in section 11K of ATA, 1997 punishable under section 11N of ATA, 1997 all the present accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years each. vii. The property of present accused persons as defined in section 02(p)(a) of ATA, 1997 are also directed to be forfeited as provided under section 7(2) read with 11Q 2(iv) and (vi) of ATA, 1997, under intimation to this Court.
The appellants were also extended benefit of section 382(b), Cr.PC and their sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Precisely, facts of the prosecution case as narrated in FIR No. 38/2018 are that the complainant Muhammad Noor Alam received a phone call on 06.02.2018 regarding a Toyota Corolla bearing Registration No. AEN-578 left abandoned. Realising that it was his son Raheel Alam's, he rushed to the place and found his son missing and accordingly informed the police station on 07.02.2018 about his son's absence. On 17.02.2018, his other son Muhammad Nabeel Alam Received a ransom call for Rs.350,000,000/- (three hundred and fifty million) from one Haji Qandhari who asked him to come to Quetta with the ransom to which Muhammad Nabeel Alam refused. Then, after negotiation, the ransom amount was agreed at 11.10,150,000/- which the complainant party delivered to appellant Mukhtiar who was introduced to the complainant party by Haji Qandhari, being his well conversant. After the ransom was paid, the abductee Raheel was released. During the investigation, police arrested Mukhtiar Ahmed and then his companion Fareed Ali, Ashraf Wali and Ahmed Wali from Quetta. Based on spy information again, on 20.09.2018, police arrested appellant Naeem alias Abbas as well and on the same day, they also arrested appellant Roohullah from whom they also recovered the ransom amount. Appellant Ali Akbar was also arrested following the investigation.
3. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer (10) submitted a challan against the present appellants. Necessary documents were provided to them and then a formal charge was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses namely PW-1 Muhammad Noor Alam, PW-2 ASI Ghulam Hyder, PW-3 SI Ghulam Hussain, PW-4 ASI Abdullah, PW-5 PC Touqeer Ahmed, PW-6 JM Muhamad Abdullah Qadri, PW-7 Assistant Chief CPLC Kashif Iftikhar, PW-8 Muhamad Nabeel Alam, PW-9 Inspector Tassawar Ameer, PW-10 Shahzad Farooq, PW-11 Muhammad Raheel Alam, and PW- 12 Inspector Syed Muhammad Sarfaraz, all of whom produced a number of documents and other items. Statements of accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed their innocence while claiming that they had paid Rs. 10.15 million to the police on their arrest which amount was then foisted upon them. Mukhtiar and Roohullah examined DW-1 Fareed Ahmed, DW-2 Jamal-u-Din, DW-3 Masood Shamsi, DW-4 Abdul Muteen, DW-5 Shah Muhammad and DW-6 Noorullah who produced various documents in their evidence which were also exhibited.
4. Trial Court, after considering the material available before it and hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, passed the impugned judgment and sentenced the appellants as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants have jointly contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one day; that no private persons have been associated in any of the police proceedings; that the statements of two independent persons namely Nazeer and Akbar did not support the prosecution case; that the appellants Naeem and Ali Akbar have not been assigned any specific role by the prosecution nor has the abductee been able to assign them a role in the kidnapping; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the appellants Naeem, Mukhtiar and Ali Akbar; that the appellant Mukhtiar Ahmed was picked up by unknown people from his house on 09.06.2018 and then involved in this case while showing his arrest; that a petition was filed by his brother for his disappearance; that no CDR report from Afghanistan has been produced before the trial Court; that the ransom video only shows the abductee and no transcript of the same has been produced; that nothing was brought on record by the prosecution to prove that ransom was paid for the release of the abductee; that Rs. 10.15 million was paid by the appellants to the police which was then foisted upon them while being labelled as ransom money; that no identification parade was conducted through the abductee; that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, as such their learned counsel prayed for their acquittal. In support of their, contentions, they have cited the case law reported as Muhammad Sharif v. The State (PLJ 1990 Cr.C. Karachi 267), Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCMR 96): Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCMR 550), Javed v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 679), Arif Khan v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1287), Rashid Ahmed v. The State (2001 SCMR 41), Abdul Ghani v. The State (2002 MLD 1075), Khalid Javed and another v. The State (2003 SC MR 1419), Muhammad Rafique v. The State and others (2010 PSC (Crl.) 307), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2012 SCMR 440), Muhammad Tufail v. The State (2013 SCMR 768), Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274), Mst. Mehboob Bibi and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1835), Attaullalf v. The State and another (2017 PCr.LJ 992), Fazal Subhan and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 1027), Ishtiaque Ahmed Mirza and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2019 SC 675) and Muhammad Sohail and others v. The State and others (2021 PCr.LJ 1502).
6. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, while supporting the impugned judgment, contended that the ocular account furnished by the abductee himself is fully corroborated; that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court; that the appellants did not object to the repayment of ransom amount to the complainant on his application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. and only raised such a defence in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.; that there is no specific denial of the incident taking place by any of the appellants either, as such he prays that the instant appeals be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case law reported as Muhammad Akbar v. The State (1998 SCMR 2538), Said Muhammad v. The State (1999 SCMR 2758), Khwaja Hasanullah v. The State (1999 MLD 514), The State v. Haider Zaidi and others (PLD 2001 SC 401), Abdul Hussain and others v. The State and others (PLD 2008 SC 110), Muhammad Riaz v. Bilqiaz Khan (2012 SCMR 721), The State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad (2017 SCMR 283) and Muhammad Siddique and others v. The State (2020 SCMR 342).
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record available before us with their assistance.
8. An exhaustive perusal of the record establishes multiple aspects regarding the case, firstly that the witnesses, abductee and the complainant were put through drawn-out cross-examinations, yet the defence was unable to point out any major discrepancies that may be fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,150,000/- (Rupees Ten million, One hundred and Fifty thousand), which in turn had been recovered by the Investigating Officers upon the arrest of appellant Roohullah. The appellants have failed to point out any contradicting depositions, which may prompt this Court to belie their depositions and evidence. Undeniably, the incident took place on 06.02.2018 at 2145 hours when PW-11 Raheel Alam, the abductee, was returning home from work in his white Toyota Corolla and was intercepted by another Toyota Corolla that stopped in front of him and three people alighted from the said car who rushed at him and topic him while blindfolding him. He deposed in his cross-examination that after roughly two to three hours of driving, he found himself in a small underground room with a small gate which is where he was kept. He deposed that an elderly man used to bring him food and was also the one responsible for taking his brother's contact number from him. He identified the said elderly man to be Ali Akbar in court. During this time, he deposed, he was tortured physically and the kidnappers would record videos of his torture and send them to his family to pressure them into conceding to their demands. He also identified the appellant Naeem to be one of the kidnappers who had initially kidnapped him on the night of 6th February. Abductee Raheel also deposed that Ali Akbar used to be present with the kidnapper who used to record videos of his torture. PW-1, the complainant Muhammad Noor Alam, deposed that on 06.02.2018, he received a phone call from police station Gulistan-e-Johar at about 2245 hours, roughly an hour after the actual kidnapping, regarding the recovery of his son's Toyota Corolla Car bearing registration No.AEN-578 which was found running with its doors open. Hearing this, he went to the police station and was also shown the place of the kidnapping, at which point he deposed that a search for his son ensued. Having no fruitful result, however, on the following day, he lodged an FIR. Without a doubt, there is a delay of a single day in the lodging of FIR, but the same was explained by the complainant in deposing that they had started searching for the abductee Raheel on their own and when they were left hopeless is when he lodged the FIR. No suggestion was made to the complainant during his cross- examination that he had lodged the FIR after due deliberation, which impliedly reflects that such a delay was rather natural and did not serve any ulterior motives. Even otherwise, delay alone in the lodging of FIR is never a sufficient ground for acquittal and cannot be used as ammunition to completely disregard the prosecution case as observed in the case of Muhammad Zubair v. The State (2007 SCMR 437).
9. The prosecution also examined PW-8 Nabeel Alam, the complainant's other son and brother of the abductee. He was the one who delivered the ransom amount to appellant Mukhtiar. He deposed that on 6th February, his brother (Raheel Alam) was kidnapped and following that, his father had registered the FIR. He deposed that "I started receiving calls from numbers of Afghanistan from 9th February 2018. On the first call on the 9th, the caller had also made my brother, abductee Raheel, talk to me who was imploring me for help. Then the caller continued his talk with me and was also threatening me for the murder of my brother in case of [me] being smart enough to inform about the phone calls to the law enforcement agencies and demanded a ransom amount, asking to arrange thirty-five [which is what] I thought. At first, I did not disclose about the phone call, thinking that the matter may be settled but on 19.02.2018, I informed Sub- Inspector Ghulam Hussain about such phone calls who recorded my statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. The calls were still being received for ransom amount and negotiations were being carried through the phone between me and the kidnappers while I also remained in touch with AVCC and CPLC. I used to record the voice calls of phone calls of kidnappers and used to share the same with both the departments. 1 remained under instruction and guideline of police of AVCC and members of CPLC in dealing with the kidnappers/callers on phone calls by, keeping them on hopes [and] saying that the amount of ransom was being arranged." Once the negotiations were over, he deposed that Rs. 10.15 million was agreed on by the parties which the kidnappers asked him to bring to Afghanistan, but he refused to do so. He deposed that upon his refusal, he was given the phone number of appellant Roohullah who asked him to bring the ransom amount to Quetta, to which Nabeel again refused. Appellant Roohullah gave appellant Mukhtiar's number and asked him to come to Akbar Market near Allah Wali Market on MA Jinnah Road where the exchange took place between PW-8 Nabeel, the complainant's employee namely Iqbal Junejo and appellant Mukhtiar who then directed Nabeel to go home. Then, Nabeel deposed "I, on the next day due to my anxiety called on Afghanistan's number [to] ask them to release my brother, but I found the said number off. I then called accused Roohullah who said that my brother would be released within a day or two. On 31st of May, my brother was dropped at University Road who reached home at about noontime." His deposition was in line with the prosecution case and despite a lengthy cross-examination, nothing fruitful came forward to support the defence case.
10. The identification parade of the appellant Mukhtiar was also conducted through PW-8 Nabeel Alain and Iqbal Junejo on 17.09.2018. He was initially not known to both of them and was seen at the time of exchange of ransom for the first time. The general principle regarding conducting identification parades has been laid down in the recent case of Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that care and caution must be taken by the Courts in ensuring that an unknown accused is correctly identified. For an identification parade to be properly held, the accused must not be shown to the victims before the identification itself. To ensure this, PW 6 Muhammad Abdullah ensured that the appellant Mukhtiar's face was hidden and he inquired from appellant Mukhtiar whether he had been shown to any of the witnesses to which he replied in the negative. As such, the identification parade was carried forward. Iqbal Junejo identified Mukhtiar and stated that on about 28th May 2018, between 0230 to 0500 hours, he went to Akbar Market along with Nabeel with Rs. 5,000,000/-and gave the said amount to him. PW-8 Nabeel also identified the appellant Mukhtiar and stated that he had gone to Akbar Market with Iqbal Junejo and had cash of Rs.5,150,000/- which he gave to Mukhtiar. The identification parade was conducted while following all the guidelines as laid down in the case of Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 SC 488) and we find no legal defects in the identification parade.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the identification parade of the other appellants was not conducted through the abductee himself, however the same was not necessary, firstly because he had never seen appellant Roohullah and appellant Mukhtiar as they had stayed on the outside and were involved in the collection of ransom and secondly because appellants Ali Akbar and Naeem were both identified by the abductee in Court and such identification inspires confidence as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghazanfar Ali v.
The State (2012 SCMR 215):- "13. Even otherwise the holding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely a corroborative piece of evidence. If the statement of a witness qua the identity of an accused even in Court inspires confidence, if he is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, the absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the prosecution. In Harbajan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ((1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480), the Court upheld the conviction where no identification parade had been held and observed that the failure to hold identification parade would not be fatal in cases where enough corroborative and conclusive evidence was available. Similar view was taken in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. [(1970)) 3 Supreme Court Cases 518]."
(emphasis supplied)
Trial Court, in this respect, has rightly placed reliance on the case of Dadullah and another v. The State (2015 SCMR 856) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:- In this view of the matter, when the accused were specifically identified by P.W.10 and P.W.11 when coming out of the Bank and later by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who had apprehended appellant Dadullah, there arise no question of mistaken identity. Hence, non-holding of identification parade is of no help to the appellants.
(emphasis supplied)
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the prosecution witnesses being related to the abductee and interested is of little, if any, assistance to the appellants. Despite the close relationship of the complainant and PW-8 Nabeel with PW-11 Raheel, the abductee, their evidence after careful consideration is found trustworthy. It is a settled principle of law that a mere relationship with the victim is not a ground to discard otherwise trustworthy evidence provided that there is no ill will or enmity between the witnesses and the accused which was not present in this case since the parties were not even known to each other. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Nasir Iqbal alias Nasra and another v. The State (2016 SCMR 2152). The CDR available at Ex-12/B also shows calling from various international numbers and SIM recovered from appellant Roohullah and appellant Mukhtiar at the time of their arrest are also shown in the same CDR report as being in contact with each other and with PW-8 Nabeel which further corroborates the prosecution version. Counsel for the appellants, at a great length, contended that the same CDR was not verified through an expert witness nor was the issuer examined. This, at most is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and it is a settled principle of law as established in the case of State v. Muhammad Arshad (2017 SCMR 283) that despite proper investigation not being conducted, the material that surfaces on record if found to be connecting an accused with the commission of the offence, will be sufficient enough and will not be bearing any adverse outcome in the case.
12. The defence raised by the appellants, however, specifically the one being regarding the appellant Mukhtiar's arrest on 09.06.2018 for which Constitutional Petition No. D-5161 of 2018 was also filed before. this Court on 10.07.2018 and Roohullah's arrest on 09.06.2018 from Quetta and the alleged demand for a bribe. It is a matter of record that the kidnapping took place on 06.02.2018 and the abductee was let go on 3I.O5.2018. The alleged arrests of the two appellants, Mukhtiar and Roohullah, took place on 09.06.2018 according to their defence plea which is after the release of the abductee Raheel and the two were already known to the police by then. The statements of DW-1 to 6 merely appear to be belated arrangements made by the well-wishers of the appellants which have no bearing on the outcome of the case; Ibrarurullah v. The. State (2021 SCMR 128). Even otherwise, they have not been able to establish any ill will or animosity on the part of the abductee and the complainant party, to whom they were not even known before the incident, who have otherwise fully implicated the appellants for the commission of the offence. Another plea raised was that Rs. 10.15 million that was the ransom was arranged by the appellants and given to the police, but it was instead foisted on them. Concerning that, it is a matter of record that the complainant had ?filed an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for collecting the ransom amount back and at no point did any of the appellants object to the same besides taking the said stance in their 342, Cr.P.C. statements nor was the said order impugned before the appropriate forum. Therefore, they cannot seek to gain benefit from the same.
13. After proper assessm ent and evaluation of evidence, this Court concurs in the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants having been proven to the hilt. Counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out some discrepancies in the investigation, however at this juncture it would be advantageous to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hussain Soomro v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 71):- "8. Before parting with this judgment, it may be pertinent to observe that the crimes like kidnapping for ransom have become rampant in our society, which is an unfortunate state of affairs and can only be deprecated. Such kind of criminal acts must be dealt with iron hands and even if there are minor discrepancies and deviations in the evidence or shortfalls on the part of investigating agency, the Courts should always be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching the true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case. We may not be misunderstood to mean that an innocent person wrongly roped by prosecution or falsely involved by an unscrupulous Investigating Officers should be unreasonably dealt with or made escape goat but the Courts must maintain balance while arriving at the truth or falsehood of the matter by sifting the grain from the chaff. This may be treated as a rule of caution and circumspection."
(emphasis supplied)
14. For what has been discussed above, we find that the prosecution has proven its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt and that the view taken by the learned trial Court is just, appropriate and within the four corners of proper administration of justice. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is maintained, the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants are upheld and as such the captioned Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal. Nos. 14 and 30 of 2020 are dismissed.