' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.---Appellant Ghulam Kadir, by way of this appeal has called in question the judgment dated 3-5-1994 passed by the Special Court Constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, whereby he was convicted for an offence under section 365-A read with section 149, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of his entire property to the Provincial Government.
2. The case of prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged and recorded by Allandad Chandio, S.H.O., Police Station Nasirabad is that on 8-1-1992 the complainant was present at the Police Station when he received information that some armed men have abducted Seth Kamaluddin son of Zainuddin Siddique, Jeealmal son of Chettomal Hindu and Aftab Ahmed son of Roshan Ali Solangi, resident of Nasirabad, Taluka Warrah from the rice sheller and were going towards west; on this, he took his subordinate staff namely A.S.-I. Abdul Khaliq, P.C. Nawab Ali and P.C. Abdul Sattar and after making entry in the station diary at serial No,26 (18-45 hours) left the police station and reached the sheller of Seth Kamaluddin Siddiqui where he met the employees of the latter namely Sikandar Ali Shaikh, Muhammad Hayat Brohi and Akbar son of Budhal Mangi who disclosed to him that they were present in the premises of the rice sheller and electric bulbs were on, while Kamaluddin and Jeealmal Hindu were sitting in the office, when six persons came at the main gate of the sheller out of whom two were armed with Kalashnikovs and the rest had guns and rifles; it was 18-40 hours time. They further disclosed that two culprits armed with Kalashnikovs entered through the main gate and controlled them and forcibly took Seth Kamaluddin and Jeealmal and got out through the main gate and on the road they also took with them Aftab Ahmed son of Roshan All Solangi, resident of Nasirabad. They further stated that while taking away the abductees the culprits asked them to arrange money, and then proceeded towards west. They informed that they had clearly seen the faces of the culprits in the electric light and they would be able to identify them. On receiving this information, the S.H.O. Alongwith his stafff chased the culprits and on wireless he also informed the mobile patrol party and the high Officers. Foot prints led them towards the west. During the chase the mobile patrol incharge S.I.P. Sanaullah alongwith the staff joined them. After issuing necessary instructions to him to continue the pursuit, the S.H.O. Returned to Police Station, where he recorded the F.I.R. At 20-30 hours and started the investigation.
3. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And prepared the memo. Of inspection of place of occurrence. One of the abductees namely Aftab Ahmed was let off by the culprits, he recorded the statement of said abductee. The abductees were released after about 8/9 days and it is the case of prosecution that each of them had paid Rs,six lacs as ransom money.
Further investigation was conducted by Leemon Khan Additional S.H.O. Who on 19-4-1993 on the basis of spy information arrested the accused and. Secured an unlicensed SBBL gun and five live cartridges of 12 bore on his pointation. Identification test parade was conducted on 19-4-1993 in presence of Assistant Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Warrah through the abductees Kamaluddin and Jeealmal, who correctly identified the accused. On the same day, the statements of Kamaluddin and Jeealmal were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Warrah wherein the abductees disclosed that soon after the occurrence when they were being taken by the culprits, on the way another culprit joined them they were taken into riverine area where they were detained in the forest and released after 8/9 days telling them that their relatives had paid ransom amount of Rs,six lacs for each of them. The abductees disclosed that accused Ghulam Kadir was the seventh culprit who joined them on the way soon after incident when they were being taken towards Katcha area. After completing the investigation, the accused was challaned in the Court.
4. At the trial, the appellant was charged with offence punishable under sections 365-A and 34, P.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined P.W.1 the abductee Kamaluddin, P.W.2 Sallahuddin, P.W.3 Jeealmal the second abductee, P.W.4 Abdul Sattar, P.W.5 Abdul Hameed, P.W.6 Leemon Khan, P.W.7 Allandad and P.W.8 Masood Ahmed Assistant Mukhtiarkar.
6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations and stated that he has been implicated falsely; he did not examine himself on oath nor did he lead any defence. On the basis of evidence recorded at the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very out-set emphasized that the prosecution has utterly failed to furnish evidence on the point of payment of ransom. He argued that P.W.2 Sallahuddin brother of abductee Kamaluddin has stated that he received letter for the payment of ransom from dacoit Hubdar alias Habibullah after 4/5 days of the occurrence demanding an amount of Rs,12 lacs for both the adbuctees whereupon he conveyed this message to relative of Jeealmal and he arranged Rs,6 lees at his own level and received Rs,6 lacs for Jeealmal and then he went to shrine of Pir Saeedi Moosani as per instructions of the dacoits mentioned in the letter, where he met Hubdar alias Habibullah alongwith another person in the forest at some distance from shrine of Saeedi Moosani and he made the payment of ransom to them, and on the next day the abductees reached there, safely. The learned counsel further pointed out that Sallahuddin categorically stated that none of the culprits who received the ransom from him was present in the Court. He argued that neither the letter was placed on record nor any of the relatives of Jeealmal who arranged the money was examined in the Court. He, therefore, argued that the offence of abduction for ransom within the meaning of section 365-A, P.P.C. Could not be made out by the prosecution and the case can at best be examined from the point of view of offence under section 365, P.P.C. He contended that even the offence under section 365, P.P.C. Has not been made out as the identification test parade was defective. Moreover, Irshad Ali was a natural witness but he was not examined and Aftab Ahmed who was released soon after the occurrence was also not produced at the trial. The S.H.O., Allahadad the complainant is not himself an eye-witness of the occurrence. In support of his arguments he relied on the following authorities:--
(1) Mst. Safdar Jan v. The State and another 1997 PCr.LJ 1553.
(2) Abdul Karim alias Raja and another v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 503.
(3) Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCM R 721. (4). Imdad Jakhro v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1648.
9. The learned State counsel submitted that no case under section 365-A, P.P.C. Is made out, but he would support the conviction for offence under section 365, P.P.C.
' The authorities cited by the learned counsel for appellant mostly pertain to the drawback related to identity of an accused, and in particular the evidentiary value of identification parade has been considered in the cited cases. The case of Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCM R 721 is the leading case, wherein the relevant observations are as under:--- "It is not clear from the entire evidence relating to identification parade whether the person named were identified by their role in the crime or as individuals, as friends or of as foes. If it was the identification of their role then it should have been specific so as to complete the picture of the crime and reinforce the case against them for commission of the crime."
' The above case has been referred to and relied upon in the subsequent cases 1995 SCM R 127 and 1996 PCr.LJ 503. It may be mentioned here that both the cases before the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above, are murder cases and emphasis has all along been laid on the point that while putting an accused to identification parade, role played by him in the crime shall also be clearly described by the witness. The instant case relates to offence of abduction for ransom and in the current spate of lawlessness where amongst others, kidnapping for ransom has become rampant, the Honourable Supreme Court has assigned special attention to the peculiar aspects of this offence. The identification test parade in the circumstances is, no more considered as an essential phenomenon to ensure during investigation the identity of a culprit through such test. The reason is quite obvious. During the captivity the abductee has ample opportunity to see the culprit for so many days, therefore, it falls within the category of those cases pointed out in the case Farman Hussain v. The State PLD 1995 SC 1 in which the identification in Court is held to be sufficient because of the fact that the accused was previously seen by the witness several times. In the case of Muneer Ahmed and another v. The State 1998 SCM R 752, besides relying on the rule laid down in Farman Hussain's case reference was also made to the case Zakir Khan v. The State 1995 SCM R 1793 and following observations were made:-- "In the case of Zakir Khan v. State 1995 SCM R 1793 which was also a case of kidnapping, it was held that where the abductee remained with the accused abductors during the captivity and had clearly seen, their faces holding of an identification parade was not a mandatory requirement as follows- ' The question as to the identification of the accused in a case of kidnapping by the kidnapee who had seen the accused for the first time, who had not been known to him previously, was examined in detail in State v. Farman Hussain PLD 1995 SC 1. By a majority view, as per the observations made by one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.), a clear distinction was drawn between the circumstances where the witness only got a glimpse of the accused who happened to be a stranger to him and where although the witness had met the accused for the first time but he had seen him several times. It was held that in the latter case the necessity of holding an identification parade could be dispensed with and the accused could even be identified in the Court for the first time. In the present case the kidnapee had remained with the accused sufficiently long not only to identify them even by their names. This is not a case where a witness had only gotten a glimpse of the accused but in this case, admittedly he had remained with them during his captivity and had clearly seen their faces. Therefore, in our opinion, holding of an identification parade was not a mandatory requirement in the present case'."
' It was also held in Muneer Ahmed's case that the mere fact that the accused persons were described as unknown persons in the F.I.R. Did not create a dent in the prosecution case calling for acquittal of the appellants. Additionally, regarding the recoveries inclusive of ransom money the following observations were made:-- "The fact that no recovery was made is of no consequence as the culprits had been arrested several months after the incident. The contention that the Investigating Officer had not mentioned about any efforts for recovery of Kalashnikov, ransom money of the Alto car or that the investigation was in view of the clear and unambiguous evidence of the three eye-witnesses."
' View taken in Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1998 SCM R 2538 was also on the same lines, wherein observations were made as reproduced below dispensing with the identification test parade in the peculiar circumstances of the case:-- "....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/kidnappee, his statement carries substantial evidentiary value."
' In view of the principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases, it is to be assessed to what extent the abductees have identified and involved the accused and, additionally under the normal rules of appraisal of evidence, whether their evidence is inherently believable, confidence inspiring and free from a motive to implicate the appellant falsely.
' Although, the prosecution at its level has examined the Magistrate in whose presence the identification parade was held namely Masood Ahmed P.W.8 and the memo. Of identification test has also been produced by him as Exh.15/B, but as mentioned earlier we are not inclined to treat the evidence of identification test parade as the only substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of identity of the accused, Tor, in view of the above dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court, the evidence of abductees will be sufficient in this regard.
' Kamaluddin one of the baductees, deposed that he was caught hold of by his collar and Jeealmal was also dragged and both taken out of the factory where four other culprits were present armed with deadly weapons and on the way Aftab Ahmed Solangi was also taken from outside the factory but during transit at about mid-night time Aftab Ahmed Solangi was let off. Kamaluddin has stated in specific words that the present appellant met them on the way and then the culprits took them in the forest and detained them there. The culprits directed him to write letter to his brother for payment of ransom after three days. They were detained for ten days in the forest and then informed that the ransom amount has been received and they are being released. At about 3-30 hours or 4-00 p.m. The dacoits blind-folded them and took them out of the forest and after a walk of one hour they left them near the Road with direction to go straight for reaching the main road. One of the culprits accompanied them from forest leading to the road. They reached their houses at about 10-00 p.m. He then informed the police and was examined by the S.H.O. He stated that during the captivity Jeealmal was severely maltreated and beaten but he was not maltreated by the culprit. He stated that he was produced before Assistant Mukhtiarkar wherein he identified the present appellant and thereafter, his statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. At the end of his examination-in-chief, he has repeated that the present appellant was present in the forest during the period of their detention and he alongwith other accused persons used to guard them. In cross-examination, he further explained that the appellant used to guard them and sleep at the same place where they were kept. He also explained that he could not give the name of present appellant in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, as he came to know about his name only after his arrest. He had given the name of accused in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., since it was recorded after the identification test parade. Suggestions were given to him to the effect that accused was not one of the culprits, he denied the same, but it was not suggested to him that he gave false evidence or because of some animus he was motivated to implicate the appellant falsely. In real sense, the evidence of this witness was not challenged but only some clarifications were obtained and he explained the circumstances unmistakably. No such version, in any manner, could be obtained during cross-examination as to doubt his veracity.
' The other abductee Jeealmal deposed that at the time of incident the culprits took him alongwith Kamaluddin out of rice mill where four other culprits were waiting. On the way, his spectacles fell down and he lost his temper whereupon the culprits dragged him by his arm-pits. According to him there was third abductee also whom culprits released on the way. He stated that they were made to walk in the jungle for about five to six hours. The culprits left him in a but alongwith two culprits who guarded him there and they took away Kamaluddin, and on the following night they shifted him across Dadu Canal where Kamaluddin was already present. The culprits demanded ransom of Rs,one crore, but subsequently it was settled at Rs, six lacs each. The culprits wrote letter and obtained his signature and that of Kamaluddin. When ransom amount was paid they were informed about it and were told that they were being released. The culprits blind-folded them and left them near the road from where they reached their houses at 9 or 10 p.m. Regarding the present appellant he stated that he was seen by him amongst the culprits during their detention at forest but he did not know his name. He stated that he has picked out the appellant in the identification test parade held before Assistant Mukhtiarkar Warrah. In cross-examination he explained that the present appellant used to guard them and roam about alongwith other culprits. No version could come on record in the cross-examination that the witness was giving false evidence or had an animosity to implicate the accused falsely.
Plainly speaking, the evidence of both the abductees has gone unchallenged as to the identity of the appellant, they have made no exaggeration to say that appellant was from amongst those six dacoits who raided the rice factory and forcibly took them away. Kamaluddin was able to see the appellant join them on the way while they were proceeding towards their ultimate place of detention in the jungle. This fact could not come from Jeealmal but it has come in the evidence that his spectacles fell down and he lost his temper, therefore, he was caught hold by his arm-pit, and obviously it was for this reason that during the transit they confined him in a but for one day and on the following night took him to the ultimate place of detention. But both the witnesses are unanimous on the point that during the period of captivity the accused guarded them and was seen there. There is absolutely no reason to discredit their testimonies. No doubt they were 16 examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. After a long time but a justifiable explanation has come on record that they did not know the particulars of the accused and they saw him again at the time of identification parade. The appellant was arrested on 19-4-1993 by Additional S.H.O. Leemon Khan.
He had received spy information about presence of the appellant near the Chinjni Bridge on Mehar-Nasirabad Road, and he arrested the accused in presence of Mashir out of whom Abdul Sattar was examined as P.W.4 Exh.11 who also testified this fact. Evidence of Abdul Sattar has gone unchallenged, therefore, his version cannot be doubted. The Investigating Officer was cross- examined and he explained that he did not know the appellant previously but he arranged an identification test on the very day after calling the witnesses who identified the accused. He further deposed that shot-gun was also recovered from the appellant. In this way, reliable evidence has come on record that the appellant was arrested on 16-4-1999, therefore, no question would be permitted to be raised why his name was not disclosed earlier.
Following the principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muneer Ahmed and another v. The State 1998 SCM R 752, Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1998 SCM R 2538 and The State v. Nazir Ahmed and others 1999 SCM R 610 we hold that regardless of the identification test parade the evidence of the abductees Kamaluddin and Jeealmal recorded at the trial is sufficient to establish identity of the appellant as the culprit who joined the six culprits and actively participated by guarding the abductee during the period of their captivity in the forest.
' The learned counsel, however, raised a plea that the abductee Aftab Ahmed was released soon after the incident but he was not examined during the investigation nor produced in the Court, but the learned counsel could not highlight the possible adverse effect on the case of the prosecution, nor could he otherwise make out what damage was sustained by the case of the prosecution owing to non-examination of the said abductee. Conceivably the said abductee was a proper witness to identify the six culprits who abducted him but admittedly none of those six culprits has been arrested while the appellant is not booked as one of those culprits. The appellant took active part in the offence when he joined the gang on the way. The evidence of Kamaluddin shows that after Ahmed Solangi was let off on the way at midnight but the appellant also met them on the way and the culprits took them to the forest in Katcha. The sequence in which these two versions are given indicates that Aftab Ahmed Solangi was released earlier, but in any case there is no such version to suggest that the appellant joined the gang before release of Aftab Ahmed Solangi. In such circumstances non-examination of Aftab Ahmed Solangi was immaterial on the point of identity of the present appellant. Likewise, the evidence of Irshad Ali, the clerk who was sitting in the rice factory/sheller when the culprits took the two abductees from there, is also of no significance with regard to the identity of the appellant, as admittedly the appellant was not amongst the six dacoits who raided the rice factory and forcibly took the abductees Kamaluddin and Jeealmal. The evidence of abductees was sufficient, credible and truthful and we believe that the trial Court has rightly believed the same.
' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no satisfactory evidence has come on record about payment of ransom or, at least, the appellant has not been connected with demand or payment of ransom amount. He seriously argued that the letter sent for payment of ransom by the dacoits was not produced at the trial and that the persons who arranged' ransom money including the relatives of the abductees were also not examined. On the face of it, this approach is not appealing one. We fail to understand how could the affair of demand and payment of ransom be equated with a civil transaction wherein necessary particulars about payment of money including documentary evidence are looked for before accepting the evidence of proof of such payment. It was not an official transaction so that the relatives of the abductees should have preserved the letter of dacoits.
' There had been an atmosphere of terror created by the dacoits who were on rampage continuously for a period of years together and had imperilled the entire society and it was because of this fear that the relatives of the abductees had spontaneously yielded and paid Rs, twelve lacs and then kept quiet. In such a state of affairs it is hardly expected that the affected family should preserve the letter. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the letter was written or signed by the present appellant so that his signature and handwriting could be verified.
In fact, the dacoits adopting the usual modus operandi obtained the signatures of abductees which fact has come on record. As far the handwriting is concerned, it has not been attributed to the present appellant, therefore, non-production of the letter was insignificant. It will also not stand to reason to conclude that since the letter has not been produced it should, on that score alone, be presumed that the abductees were released without receiving any ransom amount.
On the point of payment of ransom Sallahuddin the brother of abductee Kamaluddin has given a clear picture how the money was arranged and paid to representatives of the dacoits. He has not been cross-examined, thus, his testimony stands unchallenged. He deposed that he received letter for payment of ransom from dacoit Hubdar alias Habibullah after 4 or 5 days of the incident, demanding Rs, twelve lacs i.e Rs, six lacs for each for their release. He conveyed this message to relatives of Jeealmal while at his level he arranged Rs,six lacs. The relatives of Jeealmal also gave him the amount for onward payment to the dacoits. After 2 or 3 days of receipt of the said letter he went to shrine of Pir Saeedi Moosani in Taluka Mehar as per directions contained in the letter and met Hubdar alias Habibullah alongwith another person in the forest at some distance from the shrine and he paid the amount to them. They promised to release the abductees on the following day, and accordingly the abductees reached their village safely. Salahuddin was fair enough to state that the appellant was not from amongst those who received the ransom money.
' The word of Salahuddin is sufficiently corroborated by the abductees. Kamaluddin has deposed that the culprits directed him to write the letter to his brother for payment of ransom amount and that when the culprits received the ransom amount they disclosed that they had received ransom amount and were, therefore, releasing them (abductees). Jeealmal has also given almost, a similar version saying that initially the demand was Rs,one crore but later on the same was settled at Rs,six lacs for each of the abductees. He has stated that when Salahuddin made payment of ransom the culprits informed them (abductees) accordingly and then they were blindfolded and taken towards the main road. Thus, the unchallenged version of Salahuddin has received adequate corroboration through the abductees We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that still some tangible evidence was required to be furnished with regard to payment of ransom amount to complement what has already come on record. We simply agree with him that the appellant was not the person who received the ransom amount near the shrine of Pir Saeedi Moos* in the forest. There is no doubt about the usual happenings that some middle-man is made instrumental for the purpose of recovery of ransom amount, therefore, while the gang perpetrating the callous crime of abduction for ransom may consist of a number of culprits, the ransom will be collected by one or a few of them, but then it cannot be said that the others stand exonerated. It would be neither just nor legal to bifurcate the offence and make one set of culprits responsible for receiving the ransom and the other for abduction. The crime of abduction for ransom is constituted of a series of transactions commencing from the actual show and use of force and violence followed by controlling and capturing the victims/abductees and taking them away with them and detaining them under captivity and the offence continues until receipt of ransom and release of the victims and any culprit participating in commission of any act in furtherance of such common intention or prosecution of the common object of the gang is guilty of the offence, may be constructively/vicariously, but to equal extent and degree. There is sufficient evidence in the instant case that there was payment of ransom amount and in lieu thereof the abductees were released.
' In consequence of foregoing discussion, we uphold the finding of the trial Court that the offence of abduction for ransom has been committed and we also agree with him that the appellant was liable for the offence. In the case of Muhammad Akbar (supra) the conviction of the petitioner who used to regularly visit the abductees during his captivity and was also instrumental in suggesting to him to pay ransom and obtain his release was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court, although the ransom was collected by another accused. Similarly, such technical and superfluous pleas were also taken in Muneer Ahmed's case (supra) contending that neither the Kalashnikov nor the ransom money or Alto car in which abductee had been taken away were recovered, nor there was any explanation by the Investigating Officer about such non-recovery and the efforts made in this regard, but the Honourable Supreme Court repelled all these contentions and maintained the conviction. We are in the present case satisfied that the appellant has also justifiably been found guilty of offence under section 365-A, P.P.C.
' In result of the foregoing discussion we uphold the finding of conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 365-A, P.P.0 and the sentence awarded to him and dismiss the appeal.