' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---These appeals, by leave to the Court, are directed against judgment dated 26-2-1992 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that on 24-8-1990 Mehboob Elahi lodged F.I.R. No.410 of 1990 with Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi, alleging that his son Hassan Mehboob aged about 16 years went in his Car No.R-6536 to Bungalow No.15 of Jehangir Syed Shahzad, near P.I.A Hospital, but did not return. Around 3-30 p.m. Complainant was informed that above car wherein his son had gone, was lying abandoned in a lane at some distance from abovementioned bungalow.
Investigation commenced and extensive measures were adopted to trace out the son of complainant, namely Hassan Mehboob.
3. On 7-10-1990 at 5-40 a.m. Investigating Agency received reliable information about the culprits.
The police party held "Naqabandi" near Karam Ceramics Factory, and intercepted a Suzuki Pick-up, coming from the direction of Hub. Two persons namely, driver Dhani Bux and Suleman, each of whom was carrying .32-bore pistol loaded with six live bullets, being suspects were apprehended alongwith above unlicensed pistols and loaded bullets. Interrogation revealed that both these accused were kidnappers and also connected with abduction of Hassan Mehboob. On their pointation police party raided Bungalow No.34-A, Khayban-e-Janbaz, Defence Housing Society, Karachi. Chowkidar Nazir Ahmed was found in possession of a kalashinkov with magazine having 20 live bullets which were secured from his possession. Besides, a .22-bore rifle, loaded with five bullets and a repeater magazine loaded with fifteen bullets of kalashinkov were also recovered from said house. Recovery memo. Exh.10 was prepared by A.S.-I. Muhammad Maroof. During investigation Chowkidar Nazir Ahmed made disclosure about active involvement of Abdul Sattar Niazi, Muhammad Asim, Komail, Imran, and Din Muhammad alias Dino (absconding accused); in the abduction of Hassan Mehboob and his captivity. Thereafter, on the pointation of Nazir Ahmed Chowkidar, co-accusedrespondent Abdul Sattar Niazi was apprehended by D.S.P. Arshad Kiyani from his house situated in Dhobi Ghat Niazi Colony vide Mashirnama Exh.11. Abdul Sattar Niazi led police party to the house of accused Muhammad Asim situated in Jirmah Cooperative Housing Society from where he was taken into custody. Similarly accused Muhammad Asim got arrested co-accused Imran and Komail on 8-10-1990. Car No.221-421 used for kidnapping Hassan Mehboob was recovered at their instance from show-room of J.K. Motors situated in Sindh Muslim Housing Society, which on the basis of document was obtained by the accused on rent.
4. During the course of further interrogation accused-respondent Muhammad Asim also volunteered for arranging to produce ransom of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) received by him and kept with P.W.4 Abdul Wahid a carpet dealer. Consequently in presence of Mashirs said amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) lying in 'Khaki' coloured envelope consisting of three bundles of notes with denomination of Rs,1,000 each were secured through Mashimama Exh.15. On 19th October, 1990, accused Dhani Bux pointed out oil-tanker No.QA-4510 belonging to 'Chair Muhammad of Village Haji Muhammad Goth Manghopir wherein Hassan Mehboob after being kidnapped was shifted. This was recovered through memo. Exh.35. On 20-10-1990 accused Suleman gave confessional statement Exh.30 before C.I.A. Magistrate. Identification parade of Suleman, Dhani Bux, Abdul Sattar Niazi and Nazir Ahmed was also held through kidnapee Hassan Mehboob on 20-10-1990. After completion of investigation concerned police submitted challan before Judge, Special Court-II (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) at Karachi, under sections 365 and 365-A/34 on 21-10-1990 against seven accused persons namely, Muhammad Asim, Dhani Bux, Suleman, Nazir Ahmad, Komail Abid Sherazi, Muhammad Imran and Abdul Sattar Niazi; whereas Din Muhammad alias Dino was shown absconder.
5. After the commencement of trial Special Court-II (S.T.A), Karachi, framed charge against above- named seven accused persons under sections 365/34 and 365-A/34, P.P.C, which was refuted and they pleaded 'Not Guilty'. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, who are, S. Abdul Jabbar, Car Dealer, P.W.2 Muhammad Yousaf, P.W.3 Arshad Mehmood Butt, A.S.-I, C.I.A, P.W.4 Abdul Wahid, Carpet Dealer, P.W.5 Mehboob Elahi (Complainant), P.W.6 Afzal Baig, H.C, C.I.A, P.W.7 Hassan Mehboob (kidnappee), P.W.8 Munawar, Property Dealer, P.W.9 Syed Shehzad Dehli Naqi, Magistrate, P.W.10 Sultan Masood Kiyani, Inspector C.I.A. And P.W.11 Sabir Hussain, S.I. Besides, recovery memos., confessional statement of accused Suleman and other related documents were produced through these witnesses. After close of prosecution side; trial Court examined the accused on 2-6-1991 under section 342, Cr.P.C. They all denied the prosecution accusations in their respective statement. Muhammad Asim additionally stated that he was absolutely innocent and prosecution witnesses have falsely deposed against him. Said accused maintained that Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) recovered from P. W.4 Abdul Wahid was his personal money and delivered to said witness for purchasing a suitable motor-car. Accused stated that he belongs to a rich family and furnished bank statement to show his financial position. According to him D.S.P. Arshad Kamal Kiyani was hostile towards him because during June 1990 his car was illegally seized by said D.S.P, whereupon the accused/respondent Asim lodged a complainant before Chief Minister, Sindh, who issued directions for taking action against the D.S.P. According to him the Investigating Officer namely, Masood Kiyani is brother-in-law of Arshad Kamal Kiyani and has been got involved him at his instance. Accused Dhani Bux in his statement has explained that on 26-2-1990 his elder brother namely, Haji Punoo lodged F.I.R. With Anti-Corruption Establishment against A.S.-I. Muhammad Rafique for demanding illegal gratification in connection with case of their relative Muhammad Hassan. This event annoyed said Muhammad Rafique whereupon his accomplice A.S.I.
Muhammad Maroof started giving him threats of dire consequences. Accused Dhani Bux explaining his position maintained that Hassan Mehboob (abductee) has implicated him at the instance of police. Accused Suleman asserted to have been falsely involved in this case by Inspector Sultan Masood Kiyani and elaborated that Inspector Aziz-ur-Rehman had kidnapped some unknown persons and Inspector Sultan Masood Kiyani raided house of Ghulam Qadir who was not present whereas police party unjustifiably arrested him and brought to C.I.A. Lock-up. It is stated.By accused/respondent Suleman that police had tortured him and when despite pressure he declined to give any statement against Ghulam Qadir they have fabricated documents of identification test and have managed his false implication through Hassan Mehboob. It was emphasised that Hassan Mehboob has acted at the instance of police. Accused Suleman expressly stated that co-accused Asim, Komail, Dhani Bux, Abdul Sattar Niazi and Nazir Ahmed were not known to him at all. Abdul Sattar Naizi similarly has asserted personal enmity with Ex-SSP C.I.A. Namely Habibullah Niazi who on a previous accused attempted to bracket him in a false case. According to him police at the instance of said Habibullah Niazi was harassing him and his family members. Accused in their defence have got recorded statements D.W.1 Abdul Sattar Niazi, D.W.2 Arshad Javed Niazi, D.W.3 Yousaf Khan, D.W.4 Zafrullah Khan, D.W.5 Nazir Ahmed, D.W.6 Dildar Ahmed Rajput, D.W.7 Dhani Bux son of Allah Dino and D.W.9 Suleman Brohi.
6. Trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence led by prosecution and defence has decided the case vide judgment dated 4-8-1991 through which learned trial Judge found accused/respondents
(i) Suleman, (ii) Dhani Bux, (iii) Nazir Ahmed, (iv) Abdul Sattar Niazi and (v) Muhammad Asim guilty and convicted them under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. By awarding sentence of undergoing imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each; or in default to suffer further R.I. For three years each. Whereas accused Komail and Imran were acquitted of charge for want of evidence. Proceedings against Din Muhammad alias Dino (absconding accused) were kept on dormant file. Ransom amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) was directed to be returned to complainant Mehboob Elahi.
7. Aggrieved from above conviction and sentence four Criminal Appeals Nos.194 of 1991 (Nazir v.
State), 205 of 1991 (Dhani Bux and Suleman v. State), 206 of 1991 (Hafiz Muhammad Asim v. State and 207 of 1991 (Abdul Sattar Niazi v. State) were filed before High Court of Sindh, Karachi. These appeals were decided by the Division Bench of High Court of Sindh through common judgment dated 26-2-1992 whereby the appeals were accepted and accused/respondents were directed to be acquitted. The amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) was ordered to be refunded to accused Muhammad Asim.
8. The State being dissatisfied from above decision regarding acquittal of the accused- respondents had preferred Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal No.54-K of 1992 (State v. Nazir Ahmed), 55-K of 1992 (State v. Dhani Bux and Suleman), 56-K of 1992 (State v. Muhammad Asim) and 57-K of 1992 (State v. Abdul Sattar Niazi) before this Court after delay of 63 days which came up for hearing and leave was granted to reappreciate the evidence in the light of contentions raised by the learned State Counsel. The leave granting order is reproduced below:-- "Above petitions are barred by 63 days and the learned Additional Advocate-General has requested for condonation on the grounds that it is a criminal case and since leave is being sought against the judgment of acquittal, several formalities had to be observed and final approval had to come from the Government hence time was consumed and delay had occurred in obtaining such approval. We leave this issue open to be decided at the time of regular hearing.
' By these four petitions leave is sought to file appeals against impugned judgment dated 26-2- 1992 of Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby four criminal appeals were heard together and lowed setting aside convictions and sentences. In petitions before us, in one Criminal Petition No.54 of 1992 there are two respondents namely, Dhani Bux and Suleman, who had filed joint appeal in the High Court. Five respondent before us and two other co-accused were put on trial in the Special Court-II at Karachi for offence under section 365/34, P.P.C. It was alleged by the prosecution that a young boy by name Hassan Mehboob was kidnapped for ransom. Trial Court while acquitting two namely, Komail and Imran convicted rest under section 365/A, P.P.C. And sentenced each to life imprisonment and fine of Rs,50,000 or in default R.I. For three years. Ransom amount of Rs,3 lacs recovered during investigation was directed by the trial Court to be returned to complainant Mehboob Elahi, who is father of kidnapee. Four appeals filed by convicts have been allowed by the High Court vide impugned judgment resulting in their acquittal.
' It is submitted by learned A.A.-G. That in this case there is cogent evidence legally justifying conviction which has not been properly evaluated by the High Court particularly when kidnapee himself has picked out respondents correctly in the identification parade. It is further stated that in this case ransom amount recovered has been ordered by the High Court to be paid back to respondent Asim from whom it was recovered. It is further submitted that there are several law points of public importance involved in this case. We, therefore, grant leave in this case to reappraise the evidence in the light of contentions raised before us. Issue bailable warrants against the respondents who have been acquitted in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to be executed by and to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Paper book is to be prepared on the present record and it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any."
' Accordingly above petitions were converted into Appeals Nos.237 to 240 of 1992, respectively.
9. It may be seen that respondents Nazir Ahmed, Dhani Bux, Suleman in Criminal Appeals Nos.2,37 and 238 of 1992 have not been served despite best efforts on account of their shifting the place of residence or slipping away, thus, police tuts shown inability to execute non-bailable warrants issued against them by this Court for want of their whereabouts. Consequently this Court on 10-11- 1998 directed that perpetual warrants should be issued against them. Relevant portion of order passed in above two matters is reproduced below:-- "The above Criminal Acquittal Appeals are pending since 1992. It seems that in spite of issuance of repeated warrants of arrest, respondents Nazir Ahmad Chowkidar, Suleman and Dhani Bakhsh have not been served. The only course now left open is to issue perpetual warrants of arrest and to proceed with the matter. ."
10. When arguments commenced it was brought to our notice that Abdul Sattar Niazi respondent in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 1992 has been murdered on 8-9-1998. Verification of this fact was also made by S.S.P., Karachi South, whereupon the proceedings in said appeal were disposed of by passing following order:-- "Since respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi has been murdered on 8-9-1998 which is subject-matter of F.I.R. No.126 of 1998 registered on 8-9-1998. This fact has been confirmed by S.S.P. South Karachi on the basis of S.S.P., West Karachi letter dated 10-11-1998.
' In view of the above position the above appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous."
11. Learned Additional Advocate-General seriously criticizing correctness of impugned judgment whereby respondents have been acquitted contended that factum of abduction with regard to Hassan Mehboob son of the complainant has not been disputed at any stage. Evidence produced by the prosecution overwhelmingly establishes different factors and sequences which explicitly support direct involvement of the accused persons in commission of offence covered by section 365-A/34. Learned State Counsel greatly stressed that ransom amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) coincides with the amount deposited by respondent Hafiz Muhammad Asim with P.W.
Abdul Wahid, Proprietor of King Carpets, Tariq Road, Karachi. Defence evidence clearly connects the said respondents and other material on record. Learned Additional Advocate-General canvassed that depositing of Rs,3,00,000 with a carpet dealer for purchasing a car despite being strange and unbelievable displays weakness of his stand taken in the present case. It was additionally argued that abductee or his father (complainant) apparently had no motive against any of the accused person, therefore, they had given true details of what had happened. These details coupled with other set of prosecution evidence; demonstrate sufficient and convincing basis for proving charge against the respondents.
12. As regards delay in filing of appeals learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out numerous obstacles concerning prosecution and measures adopted for procuring sanction of the competent Authority for filing appeals. Learned State Counsel argued that respondents are responsible for commission of heinour crime which should not go unpunished merely on account of technicalities and minor omissions on the part of concerned official.
13. Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent Muhammad Asim in Cr.A.
No.239 of 1992 opposing the appeal canvassed that version of complainant Mehboob Elahi remained unsupported by independent evidence, therefore, his testimony is not confidence inspiring. Learned counsel maintained that identification tests were materially defective and inadmissible. Similarly according to him, confessional statement of respondent Suleman was neither true nor voluntary, thus it does not by any means implicate respondent Muhammad Asim.
He emphasized that High Court while reappraising entire evidence had correctly assessed the same and interfered with defective findings of the trial Court on the basis of sound reasoning. He pressed for dismissal of appeals. Mr. Samdani had seriously objected to the delay in filing of appeals and stated that appellant was not entitled to any preference. He, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the observations in PLD 1981 SC 241 (Saldera v. Muhammad Yar).
14. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties we have carefully gone through entire record and considered above submissions. We feel that for proper appreciation, it would be necessary to give brief resume from the depositiohs of witnesses.
' P.W.1 S. Abdul Jabbar deposed that he owns J.K. Motors and also carry 'Rent-a-Car business'. On 21-8-1990 at about 11/12 noon Komail accused (acquitted by the trial Court) had obtained 'Charade'
Car No.221-421 on rent after fulfilling requisite formalities. On 28-8-1990 said Komail returned the amount due on account of car-rent. Witness stated that later car was secured from his show-room vide Exh.7 on 8-10-1990.
' P.W.2 Muhammad Yousaf the owner of New Crown Motors and resident of Mohallah where house of above-referred Komail accused is situate. The witness stated that on 21-8-1990, accused Komail approached for renting out a car. Witness referred him to J.K. Motors in the businesss of 'Rent- a.Car; who then took over rent-car on 21-9-1990 and returned it towards 28-8-1990.
' P.W.3. Arshad Mahmood Butt, A.S.-I., C.I.A. Centre, in his testimony before trial Court stated that on 7-10-1990 he accompanied Inspector Sultan Masood Kiyani, S.I. Latif Sheikh, A.S.-I., Maroof, A.S.-I.
Aijaz and other police personnel for patrol duty. On receiving credible information at about 5-45 a.m. Near Karam Ceramic Factory they intercepted a Suzuki pick-up coming from Hub side towards Karachi. Accused-respondent Dhani Bux was driving the vehicle whereas accused- respondent Suleman was accompanying him. On search they secured .32-bore pistol loaded with six live bullets from each of the respondents namely Dhani Bux and Suleman. These weapons alongwith bullets were secured from the possession of above respondents under a Mashirnama.
The witness further deposed that said accused-respondents on interrogation led the police party to a house No. 34-A, Clifton, Karachi, where Chowkidar Nazir Ahmad was taken into custody. Said Chowkidar was found to be connected with abduction of Hassan Mehboob. The house was also searched and 7mm rifle loaded with five bullets, one kalashinkov loaded with 20 live bullets in magazine was recovered from a room of said house.
' Mashirnama Exh. 10 was prepared at the spot. Accused persons were taken into custody.
Respondent Nazir Ahmed voluntarily pointed out residence of Abdul Sattar Niazi who was found concerned with crime and later apprehended him from his house located in Dhobi Ghat, Niazi Colony. Respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi disclosing about active participation of respondent Muhammad Asim led the police party to Bahadurabad and identified his residence. Thus, respondent Muhammad Asim was also apprehended vide Mashirnama Exh.
12. On the pointation of Muhammad Asim Bahadurabad Police apprehended Imran vide Exh.14.
During further interrogation respondent Muhammad Asim admitted that ransom money was deposited by him with P.W.4 Abdul Wahid of King Carpets. Police party on the pointation of Muhammad Asim recovered said amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) vide Mashirnama Exh.15 on 14-10-1990. Complainant then produced before Inspector Sultan Masood Kiyani cassette/tape showing dialogue between him and the kidnappers; for arranging ransom amount and consequential release of his son. In cross-examination it was not disputed that Bungalow No.34/A, which was in possession of Sardars of Balochistan and Nazir Ahmed was working as Chowkidar. Witness did not dispute existence of several facts in the vicinity of said Bungalow.
' P.W.4 Abdul Wahid, proprietor of King Carpets in his statement admitted that sum of Rs,3 lacs for purchase of car was given to him by mother of respondent Muhammad Asim on 17-10-1990. This witness further tried to explain that he also deals in purchase of cars. He was, however, declared hostile by the prosecution and during cross-examination by A.P.P. It was conceded that respondent Muhammad Asim was his relative. Signature on Mashirnama regarding recovery of Rs, 3 lacs consisting of currency notes with denomination of Rs,1,000 each, was not disputed. Answering query on behalf of respondent witness admitted investment of respondent's mother in carpet business.
' P.W.5 Mehboob Elahi, in his testimony before trial Court stated that on 24-8-1990 at about 3-00 p.m. He was informed by Chowkidars of market that burglary was committed in shops of Jehangir and Sikandar, who were his relatives. Complainant then sent his son Hassan Mehboob to drop said Chowkidars near the houses of Sikandar and Jehangir. Witness deposed that his son Hassan Mehboob drove Car No.R-6536 Nissan Sunny for said purpose but did not return for quite some time. Distance of Jehangir's house being hardly drive of five minutes, complainant became perturbed and made inquiries whereupon it revealed that son of the complainant had left immediately after dropping the Chowkidars. They made efforts to locate Hassan Mehboob. It was found that car was standing abandoned in the middle of lane near P.I.A. Hospital. At about 4-00 p.m. Witness (complainant) received a call on his Telephone No.433860 wherein he was threatened not to collect so may people in the house. Telephonically it was informed that his son Hassan Mehboob was in their 'custody, and he should abstain from placing the telephone under observation. There was no contact by the culprits for eighteen days. Again on 10-9-1990 at about 7-00 p.m. a telephonic call was received enquiring whether he was prepared to pay ransom.
Witness further deposed that he showed inability to pay the amount of ransom being demanded by them. The person calling him, however, gave his Coded name as "JAN". He also extended threats requiring him to remain silent. Two days thereafter "JAN" contacted the complainant and demanded ransom whereupon he asked the culprit to disclose his identity and also demanded tapes containing voice of his son Hassan Mehboob. Later another person contacted on telephone and enquired, whether tape of his son were received. The person calling on telephone further informed that his son was using medicine 'Calan' and that his uncle calls him 'Malang'. These details convinced the witness that his son was in their custody, therefore, he agreed to pay ransom which may be within his capacity. He also told that ransom was already paid by him earlier. Again telephone call was received by somebody claiming to be 'Guarantor". He asked that his son would not be harmed if ransom to their satisfaction is paid. Initially culprits demanded exorbitant amount of Rupees fifty lacs then reduced to Rs,30 to 35 lacs and ultimately agreed to the payment of Rupees three lacs assuring adbuctee's return. After telephonic discussion and negotiation the complainant was asked to bring Rs, three lacs to Mudasar Masjid in K.D.A. Scheme No.1 at 11 or 11-30 a.m. On 26-9-1990 money was kept on the third rack in the lower portion of mosque. The cash amount was placed wrapped in newspaper at specified place, as desired by the culprits. Since nobody turned up complainant brought back the money. When he reached home he received telephonic message enquiring why money was not kept there as promised. Witness informed the caller about factual position pointing out that nobody was present, therefore, he brought back the money. On the demand of culprits complainant went back to keep the money at specified place.
When witness came back, the guarantor rang up and confirmed receipt of ransom amount and assured release of the kidnappee. Consequently Hassan Mehboob the son of complainant was released at the Super Highways, who reached home on 2nd October, 1990. Conversation was recorded on the tape which was retained by the Court as Article 'A'. Averments of F.I.R. Were also affirmed by the witness. Allegations about false involvement, fictitious improvement in the statement and falsity of paying Rs, three lacs twice was denied during his cross-examination.
' P.W.6 Afzal Baig, H.C, C.I.A., deposed that on 7-10-1990 at about 5-50 a.m. They alongwith police party comprising of Inspector Sultan Masood Kiyani and `others after making entries in the Roznamcha intercepted Suzuki pick-up near Manghopir Karam Ceramic Factory, which was moving from Hub towards Karachi. Respondent Dhani Bux and his companion Suleman, each of whom was carrying 30-bore pistol with 6 loaded cartridges were apprehended and said ammunition was recovered from their possession through Mashirnama Exh.21. He explained that no private witness was available at that time.
' P.W.7 Hassan Mehboob, kidnappee, deposed that on 24-8-1990 at about 3-00 p.m. Under the direction of his father, he went to drop two Chowkidars at the house of Jehangir their relative in Car No.R-6536, Nissan Sunny. On his way back, near P.I.A. Hospital suddenly a white Charade Car with tainted glasses appeared from front side and blocked his way. One person came out from said car and forcibly pulled by catching him from his neck and pushed into their car. The culprit was armed with a pistol. Three persons/culprits were already sitting in said car. The Vehicle of kidnappee Hassan Mehboob was left in the middle of road with key in its starter. One of the culprits had pressed his head and face with white pillow. They then drove their Charade Car for about 15/20 minutes and accused Dhani Bux came inside the car and took him (Abductee Hassan Mehbbob) to a house where he was kept during day. At nigh another culprit brought meals for him. At about mid-night they took him (the abductee Hassan Mehboob) in a wagon to some other house where he was detained for about five days. Two culprits, however, used to bring meals for him. He identified one of them to be Abdul Sattar Niazi. Witness further deposed that during this period another culprit used to visit with muffled face and informed his colleagues that demand of Rs, Fifty lacs ransom has been raised. Thus, on receiving said amount kidnappee would be released. After about 5 days witness (Hassan Mehboob) was shifted to Balochistan in a Tanker by another person namely Ishtiaque, who was short stature and had big mostaches. He was then taken to jungle in a hilly track. According to version of Hassan Mehboob, the culprits kept him for about 9 days in said area. During this period respondent Suleman also became friendly and told him that he could be set free if he manages rupees one lac. Suleman told that Komail, Asim and Imran had got him abducted for procuring ransom amount. Komail and Asim came in the jungle area where witness was lodged and enquired about the medicine which he was taking and also wanted to know the pet name with which his uncle called him. He told them, that he uses 'Calan' medicine and his uncle calls him 'Malang'. He was shifted to different places during this period. Witness came to know about names of Komail and Asim through respondent Sulemen. After few days he was taken to Super Highway in a truck and left free by giving him Rs,130. It is narrated by the witness that when he reached home he was not in full senses, therefore, his father (complainant) sent him to Lahore, without meeting anybody. Later he read in the newspapers that kidnappers have been apprehended. Abductee thereafter was called to Karachi. Identification parade was held under the supervision of Special Magistrate, C.I.A. And witness (abductee) had correctly picked up Abdul Sattar Niazi, Dhani Bux, Suleman and Nazir Ahmed Chowkidar. Witness explained that he was kept in jungle for about 25 days during this period, culprits continued shifting him from one place to another. He did not raise any hue or cry due to fear. Witness reaffirmed correctness of his version when suggestions were made during cross-examination. The objection about seeing accused persons before identification test were specifically denied.
' P.W.B. Munawar, deposed that he Was standing at the bus stop near N.I.C. Office, Tariq Road, when police came there and asked him to accompany them as a Mashir. Respondent Muhammad Asim in the presence of said witness led police party to King Carpet Shop where Abdul Wahid was sitting on the counter. Respondent Asim told Abdul Wahid to return his 'Amanat' which he had kept as ransom amount. P.W. Abdul Wahid returned envelope containing cash of Rs,3 lacs, which was secured through Mashirnama. Exh.15.
' P.W.9 Syed Shehzad Dehli Naqie, on 20-10-1990 was Special Magistrate C.I.A., Karachi. He proved the letter Exh.25 for holding identification test. In his statement before the Court, witness gave full description pointing out the manner in which identification parade was conducted through abductee Hassan Mehboob. Confirming the details the witness has stated that abudctee had correctly picked respondents Dhani Bux, Abdul Sattar Niazi, Nazir Ahmed and Suleman from amongst sizeable number of other persons (dummies). Confessional statement of accused- respondent Suleman, was recorded by the witness after completing in all formalities. Suggestions about confession being fabricated having been recorded in shady circumstances, were expressly denied during cross-examination.
' P.W.10 Sultan Mas000d Kiyani, gave synopsis of investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on receipt of credible spy information on 7th October, 1990 party held 'Naqabandi' and near Karam Ceramic Factory a Suzuki pick-up, coming from Hub towards Karachi was intercepted. Two accused persons namely Dhani Bux and Suleman were taken into custody. Details regarding arrest of above two accused and recovery of ammunition from their respective possession were duly recorded through proper Mashirnama. Similarly arrest of Chowkidar Nazir Ahmed . From Bungalow No.34-A, Khayaban-e-Janbaz, respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi and Muhammad Asim was reaffirmed by the witness.
' P.W.11 Sabir Hussain, S.I. Bahadurabad Police Station recorded F.I.R. On 24-8-1990. He prepared Mashirnama Exh.37 secured transcription of the tapes Exh. 38, which was produced by complainant. Details of other investigation carried out by him was also brought on record and reaffirmed.
15. Now adverting to defence evidence led by all the accused-resopndents, it may be seen that:-- ' D.W.1 Abdul Sattar Niazi had himself appeared and gave details regarding his enmity with Habibullah Niazi, former police officer. Whereas D.W.2 Arshad Javed Niazi, brother of Abdul Sattar Niazi, D.W.3. Yousaf Khan and D.W.4 Zafrullah have mainly accused the police for unjustifiably apprehending and implicating respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi. Basis of hostility against police and motive for implicating the respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi was also mentioned by these witnesses.
16. Respondent Nazir Ahmed gave statement that he was serving in a Bungalow of Defence Society when unjustifiably apprehended by police. He maintained that owners of said bungalow were present in his house at the relevant time; and he was not carrying any weapon when police arrested him from Bungalow No.34-A, Khayaban-e-Janbaz, Karachi, which thus, has been foisted on him He denied any connection with Abdul Sattar Niazi and expressed total ignorance or expressed knowledge about abductee Hassan Mehboob,.
17. D.W.6 Dildar Ahmad Rajput deposed that respondent Muhammad Asim was his son who had dealing in the business of cars. Witness further expressed that he had given money to Muhammad Asim for doing car business. He deposed that his son Muhammad Asim had partnership with Wahid Kotiwala. He deposed about giving Rs, three lacs to Wahid Motiwala on behalf of Muhammad Asim for car business. He denied any knowledge about abduction of Hassan Mehboob.
18. D.W.7. Dhani Bux respondent in Criminal Appeal No.238 of 1992 reaffirmed his statement Exh.41.
He told that his brother Haji Punoo had complained against A.S.-I. Muhammad Rafique in an Anti- Corruption case, which caused enmity with police. He also claimed to be in jail during February, 1991. D.W.8 Haji Pirano appearing on behalf of Dhani Bux explained that he was his neighbour. It was stated that Dhani Bux had obtained cement block from his shop about 9/10 months back. He sent his brother to collect the amount payable, but he was unable to recover the amount. At last he himself went to collect the amount from Dhani Bux but he found that police party consisting of 12 persons reached there. They enquired about Haji Punoo brother of respondent /Dhani Bux who was not available and on his refusal to give any detail about Haji Punoo police arrested Dhani Bux.
D.W.9. Suleman respondent has reaffirmed his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Exh. 42 and written statement Exh.42A.
19. In the above background it is manifest that there exists two conflicting judgments which are now subject-matter of consideration. The trial Court has found respondents guilty for the offence whereas the High Court of Sindh by means of judgment dated 26-2-1992 has directed acquittal of the accused/respondents. Leave to appeal was granted for reappraisal of entire evidence in the light of respective stands of the parties.
20. Looking to factual position it is obvious that two co-accused namely Komail and Imran have already been acquitted by trial Court. Neither acquittal appeal was filed against them before the High Court nor any challenge in that behalf was made during proceeding before this Court.
Therefore, order to the extent of their acquittal has attained finality. Besides, respondent Abdul Sattar Niazi has been murdered on 8-9-1998 and proceedings against him obviously stand abated. While examining evidence we are not inclined to make any comment about their involvement or effect of defence evidence led relating to abovenamed three accused. Perpetual warrants have been issued against (i) Dhani Bux, (ii) Suleman and (iii) Nazir Ahmed, as they are presently not traceable. Steps for execution of their non-bailable warrants through concerned authorities by adopting necessary measures have already been ordered. Therefore, appeals filed against said three accused/respondents for the time being shall be consigned to record; which would revive and taken up for adjudication when said accused or either of them are apprehended.
Therefore, as far as possible we would avoid making any comments with regard to evidence against above accused-respondents except where it is found necessary for effectual disposal of appeal against accused-respondent Muhammad Asim; mainly for the reason that after apprehension case of said accused may come up for independent consideration and final adjudication by this Court.
21. Now reverting to facts primarily connected with case of respondent Muhammad Asim; it may be seen that against him there is statement of complainant about abduction of his son Hassan Mehboob and demand of ransom by the culprits through telephonic messages which are taped coupled with positive statement of the abductee Hassan Mehboob supported by recovery of ransom amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) from P.W Abdul Wahid, Carpet Dealer, besides circumstantial factors linking the various events.
22. It is pertinent to note that abduction of Hassan Mehboob has not been challenged at any stage by either of the accused/respondent during cross-examination or there respective statements. The abductee was forcibly lifted, leaving his Car No.R-6536 (Nissan Sunny) which later was found abandoned in the middle of road near P.I.A. Hospital, Karachi. Hectic efforts were made to locate the abductee and the police also launched extensive measures to search and recover the abductee. Detailed steps whereby co-accused were arrested and their revelation during interrogation which lead to disclosure of several events including apprehension of co-accused, recovery of arms and ammunition and connected events more appropriately relected from deposition of police officials. Above all, unchallenged version of the complainant regarding abduction of Hassan Mehboob affords sufficient corroboration. It is most important that Hassan Mehboob abductee had appeared as witness. His testimony with other factors and corroborative evidence has convincingly established factum of forcible abduction. He remained away from parents and detained 'at different places for almost 39 days which facts are neither directly questioned nor any defence led to deny this aspect.
23. Therefore, in this background, prominent aspect requiring determination would be extent of involvement of each accused for commission of offence alleged against them. However, for the reasons already enumerated we are confining our conclusions only as regards respondent Muhammad Asim. The tapes which have been produced as Article 'A' through Exh.39 fully reaffirm the general details contained in the testimony of complainant. The basis on which complainant paid ransom money appears in the transcribed version Article 'A' showing details of dialogue between him and culprits. Details conveyed by the caller suggested information exclusively known to abductee, therefore, on such satisfaction complainant'g option to pay ransom money was quite natural, besides keen desire to save the life of Hassan Mehboob (abductee) and avoid possible dangerous consequences in such-like offences.
24. Next crucial and important question needing examination would be, whether respondent Muhammad Asim has any concern or involvement in the matter on the basis of evidence brought on record. Foremost and primary evidence is obviously statement of Hassan Mehboob (abductee) who has himself undergone ordeals of prolonged forced detention. As already mentioned the detailed investigation of the police and statement of P .e Officials concerning abduction of Hassan Mehboob have not been challenged which clearly shows that he remained confined for considerable long period. The abductee in his testimony before trial Court has extensively narrated entire episode of his captivity commencing with forcible removal by dragging him from near P.I.A.
Hospital, K.D.A. Scheme, Karachi and carrying away and transporting him at various places including carrying to Balochistan in an oil-tanker and also ultimate release after receiving ransom amount. The abductee Hassan Mahboob was subjected to thorough and lengthy cross- examination by the respective advocates of respondents, but none had attributed any enmity or direct motive against him. There were merely vague suggestions of giving statement at the instance of Police Officials who were hostile towards him but nothing tangible was brought on record to support this aspect or contradict his positive version. Factually nothing material could be elicited which may disclose even slightest overturn or unjustifiable effort to make unnecessary accusations. Trial Court before whom his statement was recorded had opportunity of looking his demeanour which made categoric observations that abductee who is a young boy while in witness-box fully impressed by him and manner of giving evidence and his entire narration of story appeared to be natural and truthful.
25. Complainant Mehboob Elahi confirming abduction of his son had deposed that sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) were paid by him to respondent Muhammad Asim as ransom amount and he has given details in his statement that they were kept in the Mosque on the basis of instructions issued to him and were taken away. Undisputedly respondent Muhammad Asim has led to recovery of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) on ground that same was kept with P.W. Abdul Wahid, Carpet Dealer, for purchase of a car. P.W.4 Abdul Wahid admitted that he is relative of respondent Muhammad Asim and gave some obliging statement when prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. Nevertheless, record amply shows that sum of Rs,3,00,000 was kept with Abdul Wahid, which according to him, was given by respondent Muhammad Asim for purchasing a car. An effort is made to explain that said amount was factually given by the mother of respondent, who otherwise has made investment in Carpets business of Abdul Wahid. Father of respondent Muhammad Asim, namely, Dildar Ahmad, when appeared as defence witness, and claims to have paid said amount of Rupees three lacs to Abdul Wahid on behalf of respondent Muhammad Asim for car business thereby contradicted his son respondent Asim and P.W.4 Abdul Wahid. It is interesting to note that sum of Rs, three lacs was obtained as ransom money on or after 26-9-1990 whereas amount has been kept with P.W.4 Abdul Wahid towards 7-10-1990. If the evidence is thoroughly scrutinized and reappraised it would indicate that period of depositing said sum of Rs, three lacs almost coincides with amount of ransom collected from complainant by the culprits and bank account does not indicate any nexus to said amount. Therefore, stand of respondent about who paid said amount despite having opportunity of meditation is divergent and smokes of concoction. It may be observed that without discussing evidentiary value of confessional statement Muhammad Asim has mentioned therein as participants for causing abduction of Hassan Mehboob. It has come in the evidence that abductee Hassan Mehboob during his deposition before the Court had correctly identified respondent Muhammad Asim as the person who had been visiting during his captivity. In cases of kidnapping or abduction unless there are strong reasons to discredit testimony of abductee/kidnapee, his statement carries substantial evidentiary value. In the series of circumstances commencing from lodging of F.I.R. And release of abductee Hassan Mehboob, and different stages of interrogation whereby respondents were apprehended and new facts were disclosed are factually narrated in detail by the abductee and his deposition which has remained completely unshaken during gruelling cross-examination. The version of Hassan Mehboob when looked in the entire perspective and recovery of ransom amount which led to his relea:e, appear to be truthful sufficient convincing and confidence inspiring. The trial Court was justified in placing reliance on the various sets of evidence including statements of complainant and abductee. Factually the High Court while reversing the judgment has made a cursory observation of the detailed facts without properly visualized the nature of offence or evidence expected to be procured in such matters. It would be profitable at this stage to refer majority view in case PLD 1995 SC 1 (State v. Farman Hussain) wherein judgment rendered by one of us (Ajmal Mian, CJ). Following observations were on all force keeping in view circumstances of present case:-- "15. Similarly no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that eight accused persons with the arms were arrested in the morning of 6-1-1991 from the bungalow without their offering any resistance. It has come on record that there were eight or ten vehicles fully loaded with armed police personnel accompanied by two D.S.Ps. And Inspectors. There was also one fire brigade vehicle which was used for dropping some of the police personnel on the roof of the bungalow. It was about 6-00 a.m. And, therefore, the above eight accused were available in the bungalow. One of the D.S.Ps. Made announcement on the hailer asking the accused persons to surrender. In the above factual background, the factum that no resistance was offered by the accused persons, was not unusual.
16. The High Court has also adversely commented upon the factum that the accused Shaukat Ali, Ghulam Abbas and Amir Bakhsh Umrani in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were not confronted with the factum that they had taken the bungalow on rent in the manner described hereinabove. It is true that there was omission on the part of the prosecution in that regard.
However, this omission has been rectified by the prosecution by asking the above three accused persons in their cross-examination when they were examined under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
17. It will not be out of context to point out that appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is to be given full weight by an appellate Court for the reasons that the trial Court had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the appellate Court is to take a different view in respect of a particular witness or witnesses than what found favour with the trial Court, it should give cogent reasons for doing so. In this regard, it may be appropriate to refer to the following passage from the judgment of this Court in the case of Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak)
290:- ' In the case of the witness Sawaya it is necessary to consider whether in accepting his evidence fully, and thereby overruling the estimate of that evidence formed by the trial Judge, the learned Judges of the High Court have acted in accordance with the principles underlying the safe administration of justice. One of these principles is that an Appellate Court should always give' a full measure of weight to the opinion formed by a Judge of first instance regarding the credit and credibility of a witness who has been examined at length before him in relation to the facts of the case. We consider that in accepting the evidence of Sawaya; without considering that the trial Judge had disbelieved him on important points, and without examining the specific reasons given by the trial Judge for such disbelief, the learned Judges of the High Court have departed from a well-settled principle, which was stated by Lord Shaw in the case of Clark v. Edinburgh Tramways Co. 1919 (SC) HL 35, 36 in the following words:--- ' 'When a Judge hears and sees witnesses and makes a conclusion or inference with regard to what is the weight on balance of their evidence, that judgment is entitled to great respect, and that quite irrespective of whether the Judge makes any observation with regard to credibility or not.'
' We consider that on the facts, the safer view to take regarding the evidence of Sawaya was that upon which the trial Judge acted.'
18. I am mindful of the various pronouncements made by the superior Courts as to the scope of an acquittal appeal. It will suffice to refer to the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11), in which this Court has dilated upon the scope of interference with an acquittal judgment. In the above report it has been inter alia held that the Supreme Court would not, on principle ordinarily, interfere with an acquittal judgment and instead would give due weight and consideration to the finding of the Court acquitting the accused and that the mere fact that Supreme Court might have taken a different view on the reappraisal of the same evidence, would not be a ground for interference. It has been further held that if the conclusions reached by the acquitting Court was such that no reasonable person could conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion.
19. In the present case I have already observed that the High Court has misread the evidence, it has drawn adverse inference on wrong assumptions. The testimony of the two child witnesses has been discarded on reasons not well-founded. In the case of Abdulllah Shah v. The State 1968 SCM R 852 on the basis of a solitary statement of Mst. Jamila, aged about 7 or 8 years, this Court sustained conviction in a murder case. In the case of Umar v. The Crown 1969 SCM R 600, again this Court, on the basis of a solitary eye-witness, Mst. Jamual, aged 9 years only, the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was sustained. Whereas in the present case, Tariq Nawaz was aged about 11 years, while his sister Aisha Qamar was aged about 10 years. The trial Court, after putting necessary questions to them, found them fit to understand the questions and to give rationale answers. They withstood lengthy cross-examination conducted by about four counsel for the accused persons. If they would have been tutored, they would have been shaken in the cross-examination. I have already observed hereinabove that I concur with the observations of the learned trial Court that the testimony of the above two child witnesses appears to be true, simple, natural, honest and straightforward.
20. In my view, the above acquittal appeals must succeed against the following accused:---
(i) Ghulam Abbas, he was one of the three accused persons, who had actually kidnapped Tariq Nawaz in the car. Against him there is evidence of Tariq Nawaz corroborated by his sister, Aisha Qamar. Besides that, he contacted Abdul Qadir Sangi, an estate agent, for taking on rent the bungalow in the name of Shah Nawaz Bhutto. The testimony of Abdul Qadir Sangi corroborates the evidence of the above child witnesses. He was also arrested from the bungalow as a result of the police raid on 6-1-1991.
(ii) Liaqat Ali; he was also one of the three accused persons who had actually kidnapped Tariq Nawaz in the car. Against him there is evidence of Tariq Nawaz corroborated by his sister, Aisha Qamar.
(iii) Amir Bakhsh Umrani; he had taken on rent the bungalow where the kidnapped Tariq Nawaz was kept for 5 days. Thee bungalow was used by the gang of kidnappers for keeping the kidnapped persons. He has been identified by Abdul Qadir Sangi, an estate agent, and Nisar Ahmed Nadeem, who had let out the bungalow to Amir Bakksh Umrani in the name of Shah Nawaz Bhutto. The tenancy agreement Exh. 16/A also corroborates the factum that he had taken on rent the bungalow. Whereas Exhs. 16/B and 16/C are receipts of the payments made by Amir Bakhsh Umrani in the name of Shah Nawaz Bhutto amounting to Rs,72,000 and Rs,24,000 respectively. He claimed that he was the President of S.P.S.F. It is not explained by him from where he got the above money for making payment. Tariq Nawaz had deposed that Amir Bakhsh Umrani was one of the accused persons who used to guard him in the bungalow. He was also arrested from the bungalow as a result of the police raid in the morning of 6-1-1991. He, therefore, had fully participated in the commission of the offence.
(iv) Shaukat Ali; he alongwith accused Ghulam Abbas contacted Abdul Qadir Sangi for taking on rent the bungalow for Amir Bakhsh Umrani. They introduced Amir Baldish Umrani as Shah Nawaz Bhutto to Abdul Qadir Sangi. He has been identified by Abdul Qadir Sangi, who had confirmed the factum that he and Ghulam Abbas contacted him for taking on rent the bungalow. Tariq Nawaz kidnapped has deposed that Shahukat Ali was one of the accused persons who used to guard him in the bungalow. He was also arrested from the bungalow in the morning of 6-1-1991 in consequence of the police raid.
21. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence against the above four accused persons and the High Court was not justified in acquitting them. The acquittal judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice."
26. Thus, taking into consideration principle enunciated in above report and circumstances of the instant case we are persuaded to observe that learned Judges of High Court of Sindh while passing impugned judgment directing acquittal of respondent Muhammad Asim and reversing findings of the trial Court in that behalf have made serious error misconstruing legal and factual position. They appeared to have been greatly influenced by the loose concession made by learned Additional Advocate-General, which by itself was not based on any justified grounds. Conclusions drawn by High Court in the impugned judgment thus suffered from glaring misreading of evidence, disregarding necessary principle in such-like offences. We are conscious about the scope of acquittal appeal as elucidated in various pronouncements of this Court including case of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11). No doubt ordinarily the acquittal judgment must be given due weight and mere possibility of recording different view on the reappraisal of the same evidence would not be sufficient for interference but where there is a blatant misreading of evidence leading to grave miscarriage of justice or make wholly artificial or shocking impressions which no reasonable person could perceive then under such exceptional circumstances, in the presence of overwhelming proof resulting in irresistible conclusion regarding involvement of accused interference is justifiable as also noted in para. 18 (supra) of afore-quoted report.
Therefore, believing the statements of complainant and abductee Hassan Mehboob supported by recovery of ransom amount and the absence of motive of these witnesses as regards respondent coupled with weakness of stand taken to absolve him from the liability we feel that High Court was not justified to interfere with conclusions about his conviction recorded against respondent Muhammad Asim by the trial Court.
27. Lastly, it may be seen that there is delay of 63 days in filing petition for leave to appeal. It is settled provisions of limitation must be strictly applied and vague or flimsy ground do not deserve adequate basis for condonation of delay, Similarly the State is also placed on the same pedestal as any other person claiming benefit in that behalf. Anyhow circumstances of each case has to be independently kept in view and are relevant for deciding the legitimacy of according condonation of delay with regard to acquittal appeal. It has been contended that date of hearing was not mentioned in the impugned judgment and the State on becoming aware of said decision moved application for certified copy on 15-6-1992 and cost was deposited on 17-6-1992. The copy was delivered on 23-6-1992, whereas petition for leave to appeal was filed on 28-6-W92 without loss of time. Apparently no counter-affidavit has been filed challenging averments made in condonation application. There is another aspect that Additional Advocate-General, who clearly was expected to follow up matter for challenging the judgment had factually given a concession in favour of respondent before the High Court. Therefore, authority which in the given circumstances could show anxiely' to pursue the matter for challenging the acquittal judgment passed by the High Court was apparently disinterested. Gravity of offence obviously effect,s society in general. Thus, special situation whereby material evidence had been discredited contrary to the principles laid down in PLD 1995 SC 1 (supra) and considering above factor, we feel that the delay in filing the appeal in specific circumstances, of present case deserves to be condoned.
28. For the foregoing reasons we are inclined to accept Criminal Appeal No.239 of 1992 (State v.
Muhammad Asim) to the extent of order passed against respondent Muhammad Asim and approve the conclusions of trial Court regarding holding him guilty for the offence under section 365-A. However, question arises about quantum of sentence which may be awarded to him.
Respondent Muhammad Asim was acquitted of the charge by the High Court on 26-2-1992. More than six and half years have elapsed during which he has been enjoying benefits of liberty and has not been, thereafter, involved in any other offence. Evidence against him mainly suggests his visiting the place where abductee was detained and also procuring Rs,3,00,000 (Rs, three lacs) from, -complainant towards ransom amount which was kept with P.W.4 Abdul, Wahid and eventually recovered by police at his instance. The incident had taken place prior to promulgation of Ordinance XIV of 1990 and for above peculiar circumstances does not call for maximum sentence awarded by the trial Court. Lenient view was also taken in afore-quoted judgment (PLD 1995 SC 1) and relevant portion is reproduced below:-- "24. I would, therefore, dismiss the acquittal appeal against the above three accused, namely, Farman Hussain, Niaz Ahmed and Aslam Shah, but would allow the appeal against accused Ghulam Abbas, Liaqat Ali, Amir Bakhsh Umrani, and Shaukat Ali and would set aside the acquittal judgment against them and would restore the judgment of the trial Court. But as regards the quantum of sentence, in my view, extreme penalty of imposition of death and forfeiture of their movable and immovable properties as was ordered by the trial Court, is not warranted at this stage for the reason that inter alia above four accused were acquitted by the High Court and after acquittal, restoration of death sentence would be very harsh. Secondly, they appear to be young people and they were, at the relevant time, students. It would, therefore, substitute sentence of 14 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,25,000 to each of them; in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. Of one year. However, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As I have already substituted death sentence by 14.Years' R.I."
Therefore, keeping in view detailed facts and extent of respondents' involvement, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) or in default to further suffer R.I. For one year, in our opinion, shall meet the ends of justice which is accordingly awarded to respondent Muhammad Asim. He shall also be entitled to benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He is, therefore, directed to suffer remaining period of his sentence of imprisonment and pay fine in the said terms. The ransom amount of Rs,3,00,000 (Rs, three lacs) recovered from P.W.4 Abdul Wahid be returned to complainant Mehboob Elahi. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the trial Court for giving effect to the above order.