1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,141 of 1995 and Criminal Jail Appeal No,67 of 1996. Both these appeals arise from same judgment, dated 11-7-1995 of learned Judge Special Court Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Nawabshah, whereby appellants Abdul Rehman and Ali Sher (also absconding accused Habibullah alias Haboo, Shain alias Saran Bux and Dushman Chandio hereinafter referred as co-accused) were convicted under section 365-A read with section 149, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and their movable and immovable properties were forfeited to the State to the extent of Rs,50,000 for each or in default of payment/recovery of said amount to suffer R.I. For further period of three years.
2. ' The F.I.R. Of this case was registered on 15-1-1993, under section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 13(d), Arms Ordinance at Police Station Daur, District Nawabshah. It was lodged by complainant Ghulam Siddique and was recorded by A.S.-I. Din Muhammad. The offence took place about 10 months prior to the registration of F.I.R.
3. ' The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the night of incident complainant Ghulam Siddique and his brothers Liaqat Ali, Lal Bux, and Amir Bux were sitting in their house, when at about 8-00 p.m.
4. Five persons, duly armed with deadly weapons, had entered therein. It is alleged that appellant Abdul Rehman was armed with a rifle, appellant Ali Sher Chandio with a double barrel gun, co- accused Habibullah, Saran Bux and Dushman Chandio with klashnikovs. All were identified on the spot, except Dushman Chandio, about whom the complainant and P.Ws. Claimed that they could identify him if brought before them. It is alleged that their faces were uncovered and they all fired in the air and abducted Liaqat Ali. Fire-arms reports attracted P.W. Ghulam Hussain and others.
5. 'After 2/3 days of incident, the complainant and P.W. Ghulam Hussain went to the village of co- accused/convict Habibullah, met with him and one Atta Muhammad, and requested for restoration of custody of abductee Liaqat Ali. Both the above named persons demanded Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) as ransom. After 15/20 days the complainant and P.W. Ghulam Hussain again went to co-accused Habibullah and paid him said amount. It is alleged that co- accused Habibullah threatened the complainant party not to disclose about the incident, also the abductee would be killed. Both the complainant and Ghulam Hussain after paying the aforesaid amount came back to their village.
6. 'The investigation of this case was conducted by A.S.-I. Din Muhammad and S.H.O. Anwar Baig. On 13-2-1993, the appellants were arrested. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet on 27-2- 1993 was submitted before the concerned Court.
7. 'After completion of necessary legal formalities co-accused Habibullah, Saran Bux, and Dushman Chandio were declared as absconders. Charge under section 365-A read with section 149, P.P.C.
8. Was framed against the appellants and the absconders.
9. ' At trial, the prosecution examined complainant Ghulam Siddique, abductee Liaqat Ali, Lal Bux, Ghulam Hussain, Nadir Hussain, Mir Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., S.H.O. Anwar Baig and Din Muhammad.
10. ' The appellants, in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have denied the prosecution's allegations aid claimed to be innocent. Neither they examined themselves on oath nor examined any witness in defence. They have claimed that they were falsely involved in this case at the behest of H.C. Ghulam Qadir, who is said to be a relative of the complainant.
11. ' The prosecution case rests upon the ocular account and the judicial confessions of the appellants. Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was in ordinate delay of 10 months in lodging the F.I.R. And it was not satisfactorily explained. He argued that the prosecution had failed to establish its case and the testimony of eye-witnesses including abductee, does not inspire confidence. He also argued that the appellants had never confessed their alleged guilt and their signatures on judicial confessions were obtained by the Police.
12. ' As regards the delay, the complainant deposed that co-accused Habibullah had warned him not to disclose about the incident to anybody else the abductee would be killed. He also stated that despite the payment of ransom, the abductee was released after 10 days. He explained that report was not lodged due to fear of the abovenamed accused/dacoits. He stated that, when the Law Enforcing Agencies started clean up operation against dacoits, he gave application to S.P., who forwarded it to S.H.O. Daur for registration of F.I.R.
13. ' Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that, during the days this offence was committed, the law and order in the Province was not satisfactory. The cases of murder, dacoity, robbery, and other heinous offences were frequently being committed. In the instant case, the abductors were so powerful and dangerous that the complainant party had to remain silent than to report the matter.
14. They were extremely frightened and did not take action against the abductors for the safety of their own lives. It is pertinent to note that the complainant party had no reason, whatsoever, to falsely implicate the appellants and the co-accused. Besides, the delay raises no equities in criminal cases. Under the circumstances, the delay stands explained and the Trial Court rightly accepted the explanation offered in that regard.
15. ' So far the factum of abduction is concerned the complainant has given the facts of the prosecution case, as narrated earlier. In cross, he stated that it was not in his knowledge that when Army had come for the clean up operation. According to him, the abductee was released after about five weeks from the date of the incident. He stated that it was not in his knowledge, if one Amir Ali Bux was the brother of appellant Ali Sher. He also deposed that it was also not in his knowledge if appellant Ali Sher was arrested by H.C. Ghulam Qadir. He denied the suggestion that appellants were involved by him at the instance of Moula Bux Jalbani.
16. ' Another eye-witness is P.W. Lal Bux. His evidence is also on the same lines as that of the complainant. In cross, a suggestion was given to him that the appellants and co-accused had affiliation with Pakistan Peoples Party and for that reason they were involved in this crime, which he had vehemently denied.
17. Main witness in this case is abductee Liaqat Ali. He has given the complete account of abduction.
18. He was cross-examined at length and most of the cross-examination was on the points, which did not have direct bearing on the merits of this case. For example, many questions were put up regarding his village and the distance involved in between his village and the other villages. He stated that it was not in his knowledge if appellant Abdul Rehman had any affiliation with P.P.P. He denied the suggestion that appellant Abdul Rehman was involved in this case at the instance of Ali Ahmed Jalbani. He stated that he had no concern with any political party nor with Moula Bux Jalbani. He also showed his ignorance if the appellants had any link with P.P.P. He stated that he did not know that when Military had come. He maintained that F.I.R. Was lodged after peace was maintained in his locality.
19. It is significant that factum of abduction was not seriously challenged and even there was no consistency in defence pleas raised in this regard. Once it C was alleged that the case was registered at the instance of H.C. Ghulam Qadir. Also it was urged that so was done at the instance of Ahmad Ali Khan Jalbani, and finally an attempt was made to politicise the issue with an allegation that the appellants and co-accused, being members of P.P.P., were falsely involved in this case. In recent past a trend has developed among the criminals to show themselves as activists of a political party and to politicise the issue in order to save their skin. In the instant case, nothing worth mentioning has come on record to show that the appellants and co-accused had any affiliation with P.P.P. Or that for any political reason they were involved in this crime. Evidence of abductee is absolutely clear. He remained in the captivity of the abductors and had seen them. He had no reason to falsely implicate them or anyone of them. He stood the test of cross-examination and is a reliable witness and so also the other eye-witnesses. The Trial Court has rightly believed them.
20. ' P.W. Ghulam Hussain is another important witness of this case. He reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident. In his presence, the complainant had paid the ransom to co-accused Habibullah and one Atta Muhammad Khoso. It is not clear from record as to why Atta Muhammad Khoso was not joined as co-accused of this crime, nor learned State Counsel was able to explain it.
21. ' In cross-examination of P.W. Ghulam Hussain a suggestion was given to him that ransom was paid to Sain Bux Sheri and Muhammad Ali Shah. Impliedly, it is an admission about the factum of abduction and also the fact that ransom was paid by the complainant party. Though according to the prosecution, it was paid to co-accused Habibullah and said Atta Muhammad Khoso, while according to this suggestion it was paid to Said Bux Sheri and Muhammad Ali Shah. Above suggestion has almost blasted all the defence pleas. Accordingly, we hold that ransom was paid by the complainant party.
22. ' Last contention is about the judicial confession of the appellants, which were recorded by Mir Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Nawabshah. Learned Magistrate was not able to identify any of the appellants in the Court Room, though, he claimed to have recorded their confessions. He also admitted that the appellants had not signed their confessions in his presence. It appears that the confessions of the appellants were not properly recorded. Learned Magistrate failed to give necessary warnings to the appellants, which are given before the confession is recorded. This piece of evidence is of no use for the prosecution.
23. The case of the prosecution, however, stands proved by the ocular evidence and the appellants were rightly convicted by the Trial Court. On 13-1-1998 after hearing the arguments, we had dismissed the appeals and these are the reasons for the sime.