1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-1993 passed by Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Larkana whereby appellant Abdul Hameed @ Hameed son of Gul Mohammad against whom and others a case Crime No,162/90 Police Station Mehar under sections 365-A, 148, 149, P.P.C. Was registered, has been convicted under section 365-A read with section 149, P.P.0 alongwith other co-accused (absconders) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and his movable and immovable property have been ordered to be forfeited to the State, hence this appeal.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that one Faqir Mohammad lodged the report at Police Station Mehar on 20-9-1990 at about 1330 hours stating that he has six sons, name of eldest son is Asghar who was aged about 17 years when on 18-9-1990 after sunset time he alongwith his sons and Gul son of Soomar and others were sitting in his Otaq to look after cattle when at about 2100 hours, three persons duly armed with weapons, entered in the Otaq and forcibly took away his son Ali Asghar out of Otaq and also threatened them and due to fear they remained silent and later on when they went out of Otaq they found that four persons duly armed with weapons were standing outside the Otaq, they all abducted away his son and then the said dacoits reached at the Mosque from where they also abducted Fida Husssin son of Abdullah. It is also stated that after the departure of dacoits the complainant and others raised cries which attracted co-villagers; namely Haji Umed Ali and others to whom the complainant narrated the facts of incident and thereafter they returned to their village and then informed the police on telephone when Mehar police came alongwith D.S.P. And then all with police party held Nakabandi at different places and tracked that footprints of dacoits and of abductees which led them to the village Nau Goth towards the forest on the Southern side and thereafter leaving the police party there, he came to Police Station and lodged the report and further stated that he had seen the dacoits in the light of lantern and would be able to identify them again.
3. ' Investigating Officer Mohammad Moosa, S.H.O. Police Station Mehar after recording F.I.R. Of the complainant Faqir Mohammad took up the investigation and visited the place of Vardat and recorded 161 Cr.P.0 statements of. All the P.Ws. After the arrest of appellant/accused, held Identification test parade before the Assistant Mukhtiarkar and T.C.M.. When all the P.Ws. Identified appellant/accused Abdul Hameed in the Identification test. After completion of usual investigation the appellant was challaned while, remaining accused Habibullah and Umar were shown as absconders in the charge sheet.
4. ' The appellant/accused Abdul Hameed was charged under section 365-A read with section 149 P.P.C. To which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Faqir Mohammad Exh.7 who produced F.I.R. Exh.7-A, P.W.2 Ali Asghar Exh.8, P.W. Gul was given up as per statement of A.P.P. P.W.3 Ghulam Shabbir, the Mashir of the arrest of appellant as Exh.10 who produced the memo of arrest Exh.10-A, P.W.4 Mohammad Moosa, the Investigation Officer of the case Exh.11, produced memo of Vardat Exh.11-A, P.W.5 Haji Fida Hussain Exh.12, P.W.6 Qurban Ali P.W.Is Exh.13 the Mashir of identification test parade produced memo of identification Exh.13-A, P.W.7 Habibullah the Assistant Mukhtiarkar Mehar held the identification test parade, P.W. Umed Ali was given up on 26-1-1993 as per statement of A.P.P. Who also closed the side of prosecution. Appellant/accused Abdul Hameed was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the charged offence and stated that his brother Wazir was a prosecution witness against Shah Mohammad who was involved in an accident case in which Paryal was killed. That Shah Mohammad was maternal uncle of Faqir Mohammad when he and his brother were asked not to give evidence against Shah Mohammad and on his refusal the appellant/accused was implicated in this case. The appellant/accused did not examine himself under section 340(2) CrP.0 and did not examine any witness in defence.
5. ' The point for determination in this appeal would be whether appellant/accused alongwith absconding accused in prosecution of common object abducted P.W. Fida Hussain and Ali Asghar for the purpose of extorting money and released the said abductees after getting the ransom money. In the said respect the prosecution case is based upon following pieces of evidence.
(i) Ocular evidence of complainant Faqir Mohammad and abductees Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain with regard to the abduction and recovery of abductees.
(ii) Evidence of identification of appellant/accused by the complainant and P.Ws. And abductees.
(iii) Evidence of release of abductees on payment of ransom money.
6. ' We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and State Counsel, perused the record and proceedings of the case.
7. ' On the point of abduction of Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain, complainant Faqir Mohammad in his deposition Exh.7 has deposed that on 18-9-1990 at about 9-00 p.m. He alongwith P.Ws. Ali Asghar, Gul and others were sitting in his Otaq to look after cattle when suddenly three armed persons with K.K. Entered in his Otaq and took away his son Ali Asghar forcibly and he had seen the faces of the said dacoits and would be able to identify them and one of them present in the Court was same whose name was Abdul Hameed alias Hameed while the names of other absconding accused were Habibuilah alias Haboo and Ali Nawaz Moonani. He further deposed that after the dacoits left the Otaq he raised cries which attracted villagers viz Umed Ali and others to whom he narrated the facts of incident. He also deposed that some of the dacoits were also standing outside the Otaq. He also deposed that dacoits had also abducted Fida Hussain. He went to village Beto where he informed Abdul Hameed Jatoi who informed the police of Mehar on telephone, thereafter, police party arrived and they all tracked the foot prints which disappeared at Nau-Goth thereafter leaving the police party he returned to Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. Exh.7-A. He has further deposed that on demand of dacoits he himself went to Badi Forest and paid sum of Rs,100,000 to dacoit Haboo Odhano and got the abductees Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain released from the dacoits. Ali Asghar P.W.2 Exh.8 the abductee in his deposition has corroborated the version of complainant Faqir Muhammad on the point that the appellant absconding accused came on the night of incident in the Otaq and forcibly took him away and he identified the dacoits out of them one was the present appellant Abdul Hameed. He further deposed that while abducting him, they also abducted Fida Hussain and they took them to Forest and on the 18th day his father came and paid amount sum of Rs,100,000 to Haboo one of the absconding accused and got them released. P.W.5 Haji Fida Hussain Exh.12 the abductee has also supported and corroborated the version of complainant and An Asghar.
8. ' The examination-in-chief of P.W. Faqir Muhammad and Ali Asghar were recorded on 14-1-1993 but there was no cross-examination to them though opportunity was given to the appellant/accused, whereas P.W.5 Fida Hussain was examined and cross-examined on 2-2-1993. However P.Ws. Faqir Mohammad and Ali Asghar were cross-examined at length when they were subsequently recalled but their testimony could not be shaken materially in the cross-examination. All the above said P.Ws. Have fully implicated the appellant alongwith absconding accused so far abduction of Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain is concerned and also so far the payment of ransom amount to absconding accused Habibullah. The only discrepancy which has been pointed out by learned Counsel for appellant, that P.W. Faqir Mohammad stated to have paid an amount of Rs,100,000 towards ransom money to the absconding accused Haboo while abductee Fida Hussain P.W.5 deposed that ransom amount of Rs,1,25,000 was paid for the release of him and that of Ali Asghar.
9. Whereas P.W. Ali Asghar has deposed that ransom amount of Rs,100,000 was paid. It would not be out of place to state that Fida Hussain was examined on 2-2-1993 whereas the incident took place on 18-9-1990 therefore there has been such minor discrepancy in quantum of ransom amount in the payment to absconding accused Haboo. This discrepancy in the quantum of amount of ransom would not materially affect the testimony of these prosecution witnesses, who otherwise were consistent and had fully and completely implicated the appellant/accused in the commission of crime. Minor contradictions and discrepancies would not affect the evidence which otherwise is consistent and confidence inspiring, considering that such minor contradictions could take place when the P.Ws. Would be examined after such a long delay from the date of incident and their release.
10. ' Next piece of evidence is the identity of the appellant/accused with the commission of crime, the complainant Faqir Mohammad deposed that he had seen the faces of dacoits and identified, one of them who was present in the Court was Abdul Hameed alias Hameed, though in the cross- examination which was held after he was recalled at the request of appellant's counsel he stated that no identification test parade was held in his presence of the appellant/accused. There is overwhelming evidence in support of holding of identification parade, therefore, the obliging statement made by Faqir Mohammad in the cross-examination which was held after he was recalled would not materially affect his testimony when in the examination in chief he had deposed that he had seen the faces of dacoits and the complainant in the examination in chief identified the appellant in Court. Admittedly as per memo. Of identification test Exh.13-A, the appellant/accused was identified by P.Ws. Faqir Mohammad, Ali Asghar, Gul, Fida Hussain, Haji Umed Ali out of whom P.Ws. Faqir Mohammad, Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain have been examined who have deposed that they identified the appellant/accused to be one of the abductors when Mashir Qurban Ali of memo of identification test also in his deposition Exh.13 deposed that P.Ws.
11. Faqir Mohammad, Ghulam Mohammad alias Ali Asghar, Gul, Fida Hussain and Haji Umed Ali correctly identified the present appellant/accused in the identification test parade in his presence and such memo Exh.13-A was prepared in his presence which bore his signature. P.W.7 Habibullah Assistant Mukhtiarkar also corroborated the testimony of P.W. Qurban Ali and deposed that identification test parade was held in his presence when above named P.Ws. Correctly picked out the appellant/accused and such memo Exh.13-A was got prepared in presence of Mashirs P.Ws.
12. Qurban Ali and Aslam. Abductees Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain have also deposed that they correctly picked out the appellant/accused from the identification test parade in presence of Mashirs which was held in presence of P.W. Habibullah T.C. Magistrate. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that P.W. Qurban Ali already knew the appellant/accused. Mere fact that the Mashir already knew the appellant/accused would not affect his testimony as he was the only Mashir of memo of identification test Exh.13-A where the appellant/accused was identified by Fida Hussain and Ali Asghar who were abducted by the appellant and other absconding accused.
13. P.W. Qurban Ali being a Mashir had only to depose that in his presence the above-named P.Ws.
14. Picked out the appellant/accused to be one of abductors who had abducted P.Ws. Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain, therefore, the said statement of P.W Qurban Ali would not affect the material testimony of this witness. So for P.W. Faqir Mohammad we have held above that he has fully implicated the appellant/accused,. So far P.Ws. Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain, they are the abductees and they were in the custody of abductors including the appellant for more than 15 days and they clearly deposed that they identified the abductors including the appellant considering that the said P.Ws. Remained with abductors for long period of 15 days. There could not be chance of mistaken identity of abductors including the appellant as one of culprit. Reference may be made to the cases of (i) Ali Dost v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 950,) (ii) Habib and another v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 444). Prosecution has fully established the identity of appellant/accused in, the commission of the crime alongwith absconding accused and there would not be mistaken identity on the part of at least abductees.
15. ' The third piece of evidence is release of abductees on payment of ransom money. On this point prosecution has examined Faqir Mohammad who has deposed that he paid an amount of Rs,100,000 to absconding accused Haboo and got released P.Ws. Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain (the abductees) from the dacoits. He is corroborated in the said respect by P. Ws. Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain who were adbucted by the dacoits out of whom one of them was appellant. They also deposed that they were released on payment of Rs,100,000 whereas Fida Hussian deposed that they were released on payment of ransom of Rs,1,25,000 but this difference of ransom amount would not materially affect the merits of the case, considering that the evidence of Fida Hussain was recorded after three years of his release from the dacoits. There is no doubt about payment of ransom amount on the release of P.Ws. Ali Asghar and Fida Hussain. There is nothing to suggest that appellant/accused has been falsely implicated in this crime. The prosecution evidence is confidence inspiring, reliable and fully implicates the appellant/accused with the commission of crime.
16. ' The prosecution witnesses are independent, disinterested and have fully supported the version given in the F .I.R. And their version is corroborated by the Investigating Officer as well. The evidence of abductees on the point of identity of appellant/accused and on the point of payment of ransom money is consistent and is free from doubt, considering that they had no enmity nor any motive to falsely implicate appellant/accused. Minor contradictions and discrepancies cannot falsify the entire evidence which otherwise is confidence inspiring. Reference may be made to Muhammad Ismail Jamali v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 607). A plea is raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W. Gul is not examined, therefore, adverse presumption be drawn against the prosecution and if he would have been examined, said witness would have not supported the prosecution case. Non-examination of said witness in the circumstances of instant case would not be fatal to the prosecution case considering, that on the said point other P.Ws. Have been examined. It will not be out of place to state that such offences of abduction are committed by an organized gang, the members of public are scared of. Appearing as witnesses against them, keeping in view the above fact and that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove the prosecution case against appellant/accused and the said lapse of non-examination of said witness would not vitiate the whole trial. Reference may be made on State v. Farman Hussain (PLD 1995 SC 1 at p-26)
17. ' Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that appellant/accused was not put a question in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.0 about his identification test having been held before the Assistant Mukhtiarkar. All necessary facts and circumstances against the appellant/accused were put to him to provide an opportunity to explain the same. The trial Court is not supposed to put to the accused detailed questions which may amount to cross examination. All necessary questions were put to the appellant/accused whereby it could be said that he was provided opportunity what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case. All valid points required to prove offence were put to appellant/accused and he was given due opportunity to defend himself against the prosecution evidence. Besides the appellant/accused has failed to show that prejudice was caused to him considering that neither such plea of not putting him material question was raised before the trial Court nor in the memo of appeal, consequently does the said plea have no merit.
18. So far the defence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated in this case because his brother Wazir was prosecution witness against Shah Muhammad who happened to be maternal uncle of Fakir Muhammad has no merit considering that neither the charge sheet of that case was produced nor said Wazir was examined in defence by the appellant.
19. ' On assessm ent of the entire evidence, we do not find merit and I substance in this appeal, therefore, no interference is called for to the findings of the convictions and sentence of the appellant by trial Court, hence, the appeal is dismissed.
20. ' These are the reasons dismissing this appeal by short order on 12-8-1997 announced by us.