MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.- The appellant in this case was convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan under sections 364-A and 379 P.P.C, as follows:- Under section 364-A P.P.C. Death sentence.
Under section 379 P.P.C. 3 year R.I.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal. The learned trial Court has made reference for confirmation of the death sentence. As both the matters arise from the same judgment, they are being disposed of together.
3. The F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was registered at police station Ahmadpur Lamma on 12.12.1987 at 4.00 p.m. By Jan Muhammad, ASI/Duty Officer (P.W.5) on the basis of a complaint Exh.PA of P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqoob drafted by Rao Jamshaid Ali SI. (P.W.4) on the same day at 3.35 p.m. Near the Ice Factory of Town Committee to the effect that he was resident of Basti Amir Bakhsh Banga and near the Basti in a graveyard a Malany Chan Shah appellant previously resident of Herdawarey, Police Station Kamoki, District Gujranwala was living. On 30.11.1987 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqoob along with P.W.2 Ghulam Rasool and P.W.3 Allah Dad was sitting in his house. The appellant reached and demanded bread. The niece of P.W.1 Mst. Nabeela daughter of P.W.2 Ghulam Rasool aged 4 years gave bread to the appellant, who took the same in the utencil of their house and went away. Mst. Nabeela went to the appellant to bring back the utencil, but did not return for about 2/3 hours. P.W.1 along with P. Ws.2 and 3 searched the graveyard, but the appellant and Mst.
Nabeela were not traceable. Mst. Nabeela was wearing ear rings weighing 3 Masha. The complainant along with others had searched for the appellant and Mst. Nabeela till then, but they could not be found anywhere. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.2) had also gone in search of them. It was also alleged by P.W.1 that the appellant had kidnapped Mst. Nabeela for getting ear rings, to murder her or he had abducted her to make her slave.
4. The prosecution examined 8 prosecution witnesses in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqoob complainant narrated the facts mentioned by him in his statement Exh.PA, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was recorded and had further stated that after about 14/15 days of kidnapping of Mst. Nabeela she was restored through the police of Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad. P.W.2 Ghulam Rasool, father of Mst. Nabeela corroborated the statement of P.W.1 and further stated that he received information that the appellant had been apprehended by the police of police station Tandlianwala while he was selling the ear rings and P.W.2 brought back his daughter Mst. Nabeela from the police of police station Tandlianwala. P.W.3 Allah Dad corroborated the statements of P. Ws.l and 2. P.W.4 Rao Jamshaid Ali, S.I had drafted the statement Exh.PA of P.W.1 and had deputed Faqir Muhammad, Head Constable to search out the abducted, who reported to him on 15.12.1987 that the police of police station Tandlianwala had apprehended the appellant and Mst. Nabeela. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.2) had accompanied Faqir Muhammad, Head Constable to Tandlianwala and brought back Mst. Nabeela. On 17.12.1987 P.W.4 visited the police station Tandlianwala and secured the ear-rings of Mst. Nabeela therefrom vide memo Exh.PC (photo copy) and arrested the appellant. P.W.5 Jan Muhammad had scribed the formal F.I.R, on the basis of statement Exh.PA. P.W.6 Arshad Mahmood, Inspector, Special Investigation Staff, Faisalabad on 7.12.1987 while on patrol duty in Tandlianwala Town suspected the appellant who was carrying a girl and wanted to sell two golden ear rings and on the query of P.W.6 the appellant could not explain his whereabouts. The child had stated her name as Nabeela and father's name as Ghulam Rasool and could not state anything else. P.W.6 prepared Report under sections 55/109 Cr.P.C. Exh.PE is the correct copy of his report dated 7.12.1987. He also secure golden ear rings vide memo Exh.PC from the possession of the appellant. The original memo was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Exh.PC is the correct photo copy thereof. Muhammad Sarwar constable had recorded report No.9 Exh.PF on 7.12.1987 which is correct copy of the original report attested by P.W.6. P.W.7 Zafar Ali, A.S.I, stated that on 7.12.1987 he along with P.W.6 was on patrol duty in Town Tandlianwala. P.W.6 apprehended the appellant who was carrying a girl of about 4 years of age. The appellant was trying to sell golden ear rings which were secured as suspected stolen property under section 550 Cr.P.C, by P.W.6 vide memo Exh. PC attested by him. The ear rings P.I and P.2 were the same which had been recovered from the appellant. P.W.8 Mokha on 7.12.1987 while present in Bazar of Tandlianwala Town witnessed the appellant carrying a female child along with two golden ear rings which he was trying to sell. P.W.6 Arshad Mahmood had apprehended the appellant and secured ear rings vide memo Ech.PC which was thumb marked by him. P.W.7 had also attested the same. The child was Mst. Nabela daughter of Ghulam Rasool. She had stated both names.-
5. The appellant when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution evidence against him and admitted that he was arrested by P.W.6 under section 55/109 Cr.P.C., but the child or the ear rings were not with him. In answer to the question why this case against him, the appellant replied that Ghulam Rasool P.W. Father of Mst. Nabeela had engaged him for house-hold service on the pay of Rs.500/- per month. He was also promised the meals and clothes. Mst.
Munawar aged 20 years was the sister of Ghulam Rasool, P.W. She was unmarried and had developed illicit relations with him. About one week prior to the present occurrence, Ghulam Rasool, P.W. Had caught him and Mst. Munawar red handed in the late hours of the night, whereafter this false case was got registered. Zafar Ali, A.S.I, was serving in District Faisalabad. He is a relative of Ghulam Rasool, P.W. And he had arrested the appellant in Tandlianwala to involve him in this false case. He further stated that he had produced his written statement in that respect. The appellant had not made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State counsel and have perused the record. P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqoob is the paternal uncle of the child Mst. Nabeela.
P.W.2 Ghulam Rasool is the father and P.W.3 Allah Dad is related to P.W.1 and P.W.2. They have made their statements in a straightforward manner. They have no animus against the accused and have no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant Chan Shah in the present case. The statements made by P. Ws.l, 2 and 3 cannot be rushed aside on account of relationship with the kidnapped child Mst. Nabeela. The appellant was arrested by P.W.6 while carrying Mst. Nabeela and trying to sell two golden ear rings. The appellant could not explain his whereabouts and the child had told her name as Nabeela and her father's name as Ghulam Rasool. P.W.6 had prepared a report under section 55/109 Cr.P.C, against the appellant Exh.PE and had also secured two ear rings vide memo Exh.PC attested by P.W.7 Zafar Ali ASI and P.W.8 Mokha, an independent public witness.
P. Ws.6 and 7 have no animus against the appellant and their statements cannot be thrown away on account of their being police officials and they arc also supported by an independent public witness P.W.8 Mokha.
7. The appellant was previously known to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and was apprehended by P.W.6 along with the kidnapped child Mst. Nabeela and two ear rings P.I and P.2 in presence of P. Ws.7 and 8. P.Ws who have made statements in a straightforward manner and implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. Nothing had been brought on record by the defence to discredit the statements of the P.Ws.
8. We are of the considered view that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, but taking into consideration the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case, we think that the sentence of imprisonment for life shall meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly the sentence of death is altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of 3 years R.I.
Awarded under section 379 P.P.C, is maintained. However, the sentences under section 364-A P.P.C and section 379 P.P.C, shall run concurrently and the appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. The death sentence is not confirmed.