' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,738 of 1999 filed by Asad Haroon, Sarfraz Masih and Muhammad Aslam. They all were convicted and sentenced vide judgment, dated 16-7-1999 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore to undergo 1 year's R.I. With a fine of 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For 3 months under section 365/34, P.P.C.
Appellants were also convicted and sentenced under section 452/34, P.P.C. For one year's R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted.
2. Facts of the case as narrated by complainant which was Exh.P.A. Were that Asad Haroon accused was married to complainant sister, namely, Farhat, there were strained relations between Asad Haroon and his wife. On 3-2-1999 at about 6 p.m., Asad Haroon appellant along with others went to house of complainant. Sarwar Masih appellant was armed with rifle. They entered into house of complainant after it was opened on the knock of Asad Haroon. Asad Haroon asked his co- accused to lift complainant and took her with them. Thereafter, she was dragged and forcibly asked to sit in a Suzuki car. First of all, she was taken to Chungi Amar Sadhu from where "fat man" disappeared alongwith car. A taxi was standing outside the house of Asad Haroon. Then he took complainant Talat Shahid to the house of his parents. There Asad Haroon told Farukh Haroon younger brother of Asad Haroon and his wife Mst. Tahira that Asad had abducted her but they did not help her. From there she was taken to Daroghawala and wanted to enter into a house but inmates did not allow them to do so. Driver of the taxi tried to inform the police but he failed and complainant was taken to the house of one Liaqat Ali and he sent Talat Shahid complainant to her house in the said taxi.
3. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was registered in Police Station on 4-4-1999 at 2-55 p.m.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 6 witnesses in all. Thereafter, statements of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded. Appellants claimed false implication. P.W.1 is Mst. Tallat Shahid complainant, P.W.2 Fahid Ali Shahid is son of complainant, P.W.3 Muhammad Siddique A.S.I. Had recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 and P.W.4 Abid Hussain is a witness regarding arrest of accused along with taxi LHM/9752 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B.
P.W.5 is retired Col. Zaheer Hussain. He is witness of recovery of rifle from Asad Haroon, appellant P.W.6 is Habib Ullah A.S.I. Who investigated the same.
5. Learned counsel for appellants has read before me prosecution evidence and submits that this case has been falsely registered against appellants for the reason that Asad Haroon appellant had strained relations with his wife Farhat and that the complainant wanted Asad Haroon to divorce her and on her refusal this case has been got registered. Further submits that there is delay of 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And that not a single witness from locality has been produced. Also submits that according to version of Talat Shahid she was taken to different houses but not a single witness was produced. Learned counsel lastly submits that the taxi driver was also not produced nor he was cited as a witness. Further submits that appellants are innocent and recovery of taxi is a joint one which is not admissible in evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for appellants and supports the judgment of learned trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties. Ahsan Haroon is an XEN in Irrigation Department as stated by learned counsel for appellant before me. After the occurrence, nobody from inmates of the house even P.W.2 who was real son of complainant went to police station to lodge F.I.R. Nothing has been stated in this regard by the P.Ws. As to why police was not informed about abduction by appellants. It was stated by complainant that she was taken to different places in different houses to different people but none of them was produced by prosecution. Even Liaqat Ali who had rescued Mst. Talat Shahid was neither cited nor produced by prosecution. Taxi driver was also not produced. He did not even inform police about the abduction of Tallat Shahid. Tallat Shahid was rescued according to prosecution case the same, night but she did not lodge any F.I.R. In this regard. Appellants did not cause any injury nor did any wrong to Tallat Shahid during the period she remained with the appellants. As far as recovery of taxi is concerned, it was a joint one and not admissible in evidence and the same was taken into possession about a distance of 1-1/2 kilometers from the house of appellant. Alleged recovered rifle was a licensed one. Possibility cannot be ruled out that in order to get divorce of her sister Farhat from Asad Haroon, this case has been registered. Mst. Farhat was also not produced by prosecution to prove motive.
' Considering evidence of prosecution and version put forward by appellants, I extend the benefit of doubt in favour of appellants. Their appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence is set aside and appellants being on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.