' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 2-12-1993 passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, in Criminal Appeal No,72 of 1993 and Criminal Jail Appeal 79 of 1993.
2. F.I.R. No,17 of 1992 was lodged by Muhammad Baksh with Police Station Kazi Ahmed, District Nawabshah on 9th August, 1992. It is the case of prosecution that about fourteen (14) months prior to lodging F.I.R., complainant and his brother Ramzan were present in the house when at about 11.00 p.m. Five dacoits carrying fire-arms forcibly abducted Sain Bux, Ghulam Haider, Lakhano and Mushtaq from their Otaq and took them to Protection Dam. However, P.W.2, Sain Bux and Mushtaq were released but P.W.3, Lakhano and P.W.4 Ghulam Haider were taken away by the dacoits towards jungle: These two persons told complainant that out of said five dacoits they could identify only appellant Ghulam Hussain and other Rasool Bux (since dead). Subsequently, dacoits sent a message to complainant demanding rupees five lac as ransom for releasing P.W.3 Lakhano and P.W.4 Ghulam Haider. However, after about five days of occurrence, complainant party managed to collect rupees twenty thousand and on arrangement reached at appointed place in the jungle.
Thus on payment of rupees twenty thousand as ransom, said P.W. Lakhano and P.W. Ghulam Haider were released. Abductees had remained in the custody of appellants for seven days. As regards delay, it was explained that complainant party remained under constant fear of appellants till Army started clean-up operation, when they picked-up courage and reported the matter.
3. Investigation in the case was conducted by P.W.9 S.I. Rasool Bux. After completion of investigation final challan for trial of appellants was submitted before Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Nawabshah. At the commencement of trial appellants were indicted for causing abduction of Ghulam Haider, Sain Bux, Lakhano and Mushtaq from Otaq situated in village Jeawen, Tanwary in Pirado, Taluka Sakrand District Nawabshah. They refuted the charges and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution to substantiate the accusations against the appellants had examined nine (9) witnesses namely; (i) complainant P.W.1 Muhammad Bux, (ii) P.W.2 Sain Bux, (iii)
P.W.3 Lakhano, (iv) P.W.4 Ghulam Haider, (v) P.W.5 Mehewal, (vi) Abdul Momin, (vii) P.W. 7 Khan Muhammad, (viii) P.W. 8 Ghulam Rasool and (ix) P.W.9 Rasool Bux.
4. On completion of prosecution side, trial Court examined the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C.
It may be seen that appellants had categorically denied the accusations claiming to be innocent.
All the four appellants gave statements on oath, as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. They denied their involvement in respect of crime alleged against them, and asserted to have been falsely implicated. Two defence witnesses namely Akbar Malik and Allah Rakho were produced by the appellants who deposed about their presence with them at specific time of incident.
5. Trial Court on the appraisement of evidence adduced by the parties found appellants guilty and on conviction under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment besides fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default further R.I. For three years by means of judgment, dated 29th April, 1993,
6. Aggrieved from the above conviction and sentence three appellants namely Qasim, Sultan and Ghulam Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No,72 of 1993. Whereas all the appellants preferred Jail Appeals 79 of 1993 before Circuit Bench Hyderabad of Sindh High Court. Both these matters were decided by Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit through common judgment whereby eventually these appeals were dismissed vide short order dated 1-12-1993 reasons whereof were recorded on 2nd December, 1993.
7. The Jail Petition for Leave to Appeal No,36 of 1994 was submitted by appellants before this Court.
However, leave was granted on 12-6-1994 for re evaluating the evidence and to examine whether principles regarding administration of justice and guide lines regarding appraisal of evidence were followed by Courts below.
8. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the appellants did not press the appeal on merits and strenuously argued reduction of sentence as regards appellants Qasim and Sultan. It was emphatically argued that during the entire evidence except presence of said two appellants, there did not exist any substantial evidence to connect them with commission of offence. The prosecution case against Qasim and Sultan was distinguishable from co-convict. He had, however, half-heartedly challenged quantum of sentence as regards convict Ghulam Hussain and Allah Dino.
9. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the State, emphatically opposed the appeal and contended that there was strong evidence against all the four appellants. Therefore, according to him punishment awarded to them was adequate and proper.
10. We have given our anxious thought to all aspects of the case in the light of above submission. It may be seen that testimony of P.W.2 Sain Bux, P.W.3 Lakhano, and P.W. Ghulam Haider contains details about involvement of appellants in the process of abduction and retaining in illegal custody P.W.3 Lakhano and P.W.4 Ghulam Haider for ransom. The version is apparently truthful and confidence inspiring. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been duly explained and reasons furnished by the complainant are plausible. Trial Court believing the testimony of prosecution witnesses has unambiguously found the appellants guilty' for the offence of abduction for ransom in furtherance of their common object. The High Court on independent re-evaluation and thorough scrutiny has confirmed the conclusions of trial Court. From the prosecution evidence, which could not be impeached by the defence; complicity of all the four accused for commission of offence regarding abduction for ransom with their common intention and object, was fully proved. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any glaring defect, material irregularity or legal infirmity in the current finding of the two Courts as regards appreciation of evidence or quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants.
11. For the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal, which is consequently dismissed.