' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Akbar has called in question the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, dated 28-3-1998, dismissing his appeal and upholding the judgment of the trial Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Alongwith five other co- accused and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-4-1991 at about 0940 a.m. P.W.3 Shaikh Rehmatullah, while he was going in his Suzuki motor-car No,F-7375 driven by his driver Abdul Qayum was forcibly abducted by three persons who were travelling in a Toyota Corolla motor-car. One of them was armed with a pistol and the others were armed with kalashnikov assault rifles. Their forth colleague was sitting in the car. Shaikh Rehmatullah was forcibly dragged from his car and pushed into the other car which was then driven away.
3. F.I.R. In respect of the incident was lodged on the same day at about 9-50 a.m. By Abdul Qayum, driver of Shaikh Rehmatullah, at Police Station Ferozabad, Karachi, which was recorded by P.W.8, A.S.I. Abdul Sat tar Shah. Thereafter, investigation was started by P.W.2 Muhammad Akhtar, S.I.P. Ile went to the place of Wardat which was near House No,36-C, Block No,6, P. E. C. H.S. And prepared its inspection memo. In presence of mashirs. The witness also recorded the statements of the complainant and the mashirs and the investigation was then handed over to P.W.7 S.I. Safdar Sultan.
4. In the meanwhile on the same day, soon after the incident, P.W. Shaikh Nadeem Rehmat, son of the abductee received a phone call from one of the abductors, who demanded a ransom of fifty million rupees for release of his father. Such messages continued to be received by the witness twice or thrice a day. Ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs,6,50,000 and such amount was then paid by the witness on 18-4-1991 to two persons whom the witness met in Nazimabad. The next day Shaikh Rehmatullah was released by the abductors.
5. The story in regard to his abduction was given by P.W.3 Shaikh Rehmatullah, the abductee himself. According to him, he was taken by the accused to a bungalow in Gulshan-e-Iqbal where he was chained to a cot and two armed persons kept guard over him. He was then told by the accused that he would only be released on payment of ransom. The accused also took his phone number on which they contacted his son P.W. Shaikh Nadeem Rehmat. He was ultimately released on 19-4-1991 by the accused after they had received a ransom of Rs,6,50,000 from his son. He was taken by the accused in a motorcar at about 0800 p.m. And released on Khalid Bin Walid Road. On 9-7-1991, the witness identified the culprits at an identification test held by a Magistrate. He also gave his statement to the police after his release.
6. Inspector Imam Bakhsh Taggar received spy information that the accused involved in Crime No,60 of 1991, which had been registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi were hiding in a bungalow in Gulshan-e-Iqbal. On 28-5-1991, at about 0600 a.m. He raided the said bungalow and after exchange of fire with the accused, the police arrested accused Khawaja Hasanullah, Usman Zahid and Muhammad Rafiq. One of the co-accused, Razzak, tried to run away from the scene but he was chased by the police and ultimately killed in an encounter which ensued. The police recovered a 12 bore repeater gun, a 7MM rifle and a 9MM pistol with rounds and magazines from possession of the three accused. The said accused .Also led the police to the recovery of Rs,5,39,000, Rs,80,000 and Rs,12,81,000 respectively from their possession. During interrogation, the accused disclosed that the money came to their respective shares out of the ransom received by them in different cases. The arrested accused also led the police to the arrest of petitioner Akbar and recovery of an unlicensed T.T. Pistol from his possession.
7. The petitioner, during his interrogation, disclosed that his share in the ransom received from P.W.
Shaikh Nadeem was Rs,89,000. Such amount was subsequently recovered from his possession by the police along with gold jewellery. Three motor-cars were also recovered from a bungalow in Block No,1, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, at the instance of the petitioner.
8. On 4-6-1991, investigation of Crime No,60 of 1991 registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti was also entrusted to P.W. Imam Bakhsh who subsequently handed over, the case to S.I. Sohail Ahmed who after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet in the trial Court against the petitioner and his co-accused.
9. The petitioner in his statement before the Court denied the aforesaid allegations. He also got to his statement recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And produced two witnesses in his defence.
According to him, the police raided his house and took away cash and jewellery which was to be given as dowry to his sister. He also denied that Rs,89,000 was his share in the ransom.
10. D.W. Munawar Ali Khan, a retired Superintendent of Police was the petitioner's uncle. According to him, the petitioner was his sister's son. On 18-4-1991 he had invited his sisiter's family to lunch, including petitioner Akbar. Thereafter, on 28-5-1991 he came to know through D.W. Muhammad Akmal, the father of the petitioner that police had raided the latter's house at about 0500 or 0530 in the morning. He reached the petitioner's house at about 0600 a.m. When he learnt that during the raid the police had taken away gold ornaments cash and a motorcycle belonging to the petitioner.
11. The second defence witness produced on behalf of the petitioner, was the latter's father. He had retired as Works Manager from Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah Cantt. And was working in National Refinery as a Superintendent. He was receiving a salary package of Rs,23,000 per month.
According to the witness, while he was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members, he heard a commotion outside his house. Soon thereafter, the police ransacked his house and took away jewellery and cash and a motorcycle belonging to his son. The money taken by the police, according to the witness, had been saved by his wife through a period of time for marriage of his daughter which had been planned in July, 1991.
12. Both the learned High Court and the trial Court have attached weight to the prosecution case as against the defence version.
13. Mr. I.A. Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that improvements were made by the two material P.Ws., Shaikh Rehmatullah and Shaikh Nadeem. The statements of both the witnesses had earlier been recorded by the Investigating Officer but improvements were subsequently made by them in their evidence when the same was recorded in the Court. While assailing the identification test, which was held after about three months of the said incident, Mr. Hashmi has argued that no value could be attached to such test. Reliance was placed by him on the earlier judgments of this Court in Asghar Ali v. The State (1992 SCM R 2088), The State v. Farman Hussain (PLD 1995 SC 1) and Ghulam Rasul v. The State (1988 SCM R 557). In the said cases credibility of a delayed identification test was doubted by this Court.
14. We, however, find no force in any of the said contentions. The appraisement of evidence appears to have been correctly made by the High Court, keeping in view the requirements of law. It was established beyond doubt that Shaikh Rehmatullah was abducted on the morning of 11-4-1991 while he was going in his Suzuki motorcar and was kept in wrongful confinement by the A accused till. 19-5-1991 when he was released by his abductors. According to his evidence, petitioner Muhammad Akbar was one of the persons who used to regularly visit him, during his captivity and was also instrumental in suggesting to him to pay ransom and obtain his release. Admittedly, the petitioner was not previously known to the witness, neither any motive was attributed to the latter by the defence to implicate any of the accused falsely in the case. The petitioner was also identified by P.W. Shaikh Nadeem as one of the accused who had accompanied co-accused Abdul Razzak to collect ransom from the witness. As none of the witnesses had motive to implicate the petitioner falsely in the case, implicit reliance appears to have been placed upon their evidence by the learned Courts below. No doubt, P.W. Shaikh Nadeem did not take part in the identification test of the accused held by the prosecution and the identification test for P.W. Rehmatullah was held after a long delay but, as has been observed by the learned Judge in the High Court, holding of identification test is not a requirement of law. It is only one of the methods to test veracity of the evidence of an eye-witness who has had an occasion to see the accused and claims to identify him. The observations made in the three judgments of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not advance the petitioner's case as it is not a case where the witnesses had a momentary glimpse of the accused. Where a witness has spent considerable time with the accused and has c had an opportunity to take a good look at him, holding of such test would not be necessary. In the present case both P.W. Shaikh Rehmatullah and his son, Shaikh Nadeem, had a good opportunity to see the petitioner. In fact, P.W. Shaikh Rematullah had spent more than a month in captivity and during such time he was being regularly visited by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the identification test was held after a long delay, the same would not render his evidence unreliable. We, therefore, do not find merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. Since no other argument has been advanced, in the result, the petition is dismissed and leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.