' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1222 of 1998 filed by Shahid Hussain and Muhammad Aslam appellants, Criminal Appeal No,1228 of 1998 filed by Waris Ali appellant, Criminal Appeal No,1 of 1999 filed by Basharat Ali and Muhammad Sarfraz appellants, Criminal Appeal No,17/J of 1999 filed by Ghulam Hussain appellant through Jail and Criminal Appeal No,11/J of 1999 filed by Muhammad Anwar appellant through Jail, who were convicted under section 365-A/384, P.P.C., and sentenced to 14 years R.I., with a fine of Rs,50,0 00 each and in default two years R.I., and three years R.I., on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. All the appellants who are seven in number were convicted and sentenced by Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities)
Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, dated 8-12-1998 for kidnapping the daughter of complainant Ijaz- ul-Hassain for ransom.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in complaint Exh.P.A. Lodged by Ijaz-ul-Hassan on 1-7-1997 at 5-20 p.m. Were that Hira Ijaz aged 7/8 years, daughter of the complainant went to the house of Mst.
Hamidan at 5-15 a.m. To recite Holly Qur'an. She did not turn up till 6-30 a.m. As usual. Upon inquiry, it transpired that the minor had not reached the house of Hamidan Bibi and on search her chappel was found in the way. The complainant suspected that his daughter had been abducted by Haji Muhammad Iqbal Ijaz and Muhammad Tufail Zakar for reason. Upon receipt of the complainant, formal F.I.R., Exh.P.A./1 was written by Muhammad Quraish P.W.1 at 5-35 p.m. On the same day. After registration of the formal F.I.R., Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. P.W.7 went to the place of occurrence, drew visual site plan Exh.P.U., recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and took into possession "Sandal" of Hira Ijaz P.5 into possession vide memo. Exh. P.D. On 2-7-1997, the complainant accused Ijaz, Haji Iqbal and Tufail came to police station to join the investigation. The accused named above were found innocent. On 3-7-1997, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two P.Ws. Namely Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Ramzan, who disclosed about the involvement of accused Sarfraz etc. On 4-7-1997, the complainant and Khalid Rasool P.W. Named the seven accused, who are present appellants. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by Abdul Latif Inspector P.W.8. He arrested Waris and Basharat appellants on 1-9-1997. On personal search of Basharat, a .30 bore pistol P.9 was recovered and taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.I. A .30 bore revolver P.8 and two live bullets recovered from the possession of Shahid accused were secured vide memo. Exh.P.H. A motor-cycle MNE/3591 was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.J. On 2-9-1997 P.W.8 arrested Aslam, Sarfraz and Waris accused. From the personal search of Muhammad Aslam, a .30 bore revolver along with four live bullets was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. And similarly, four bullets recovered from Waris were seized vide memo. Exh.P.L. The revolver P.14 alongwith five live bullets were taken into possession from the search of Sarfraz vide memo. Exh.P.M. On 3-9-1997, the Investigating Officer, arrested Muhammad Anwar and Ghulam Hussain. From their personal search a 32 bore revolver P.6 alongwith three live bullets were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Another .30 bore revolver alongwith four live bullets was secured from Ghulam Hussain vide memo. Exh.P.G. Sarfraz while in police custody on 6-9-1997 led to the recovery of Rs,19,000 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.N. On 7-9-1997 Waris while in police custody led to the recovery of Rs,21,000 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.P. Shahid appellant on 89-1997 led to the recovery of Rs,16,000 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. On the same day, Basharat got recovered Rs,18,000 which were seized vide memo. Exh.P.Q. On 9-9-1997 Muhammad Aslam also led to the recovery of Rs,19,000 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.R. Muhammad Anwar appellant got recovered Rs,8,000 on 10-9-1997 which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.S. On the same day, Ghulam Hussain led to the recovery of Rs,7,000 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.T. After completion of the investigation all the seven accused were challenged to face the trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 8 witnesses in all, thereafter, learned A.D.A.
Closed the prosecution case then the statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
' After conclusion of the trial, all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for all the appellants after reading the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., and other material available on record submit that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, that recoveries have been planted upon them and that the alleged victim namely Hira Ijaz was neither examined by the police during the course of investigation nor she was cited as a prosecution witness although at the time of alleged occurrence she was of 10 years, and 20 days. Further submit that she was star witness of the prosecution and that house from where the complainant got his daughter, if one looks the site plan Exh.P.V. Prepared by Investigating Officer neither the name of the owner of the house is given nor its rooms have been detailed. Furthermore, the owner of the house was neither made accused nor the prosecution witness. Further submit that Muhammad Ramzan P.W.6 maternal uncle of the complainant on 1-7-1997 had seen the alleged abductee in the company of Shahid and Sarfraz accused but he did not inform the complainant. Even on 3-7-1997 when he returned to his house and came to know that daughter of the complainant had disappeared or abducted he did not immediately inform the complainant but went to the house of Ghafoor and then informed the police which is unnatural. Learned counsel further submit that Wasim Tariq a friend of the complainant was produced as P.W.3 but the cashier of the National Bank from whom the serial- wise denominated notes were taken was neither produced by the prosecution nor the record of the same was made available. Adds that Hamidan Bibi where the alleged victim used to go to recite Holly Qur'an was never joined in the investigation. Further add that it is improbable that for the abduction of one minor girl seven persons would take part and that one of the appellant namely Muhammad Aslam had been implicated in this case along with his two servants which is unnatural. Learned counsel also submit that according to the prosecution case only Waris appellant took the complainant to the house and brought the victim and in fact handed her over but none of the remaining appellant played any role. Further submit that none of the persons from whom the complainant allegedly took loan were produced by the prosecution and the complainant being a cashier it was not possible for him to keep Rs, two lacs in his house. According to learned counsel, initially complainant mentioned the name of three persons as accused in the F.I.R., but later on within 2/3 days they were declared innocent and the present appellants were challenged. Learned counsel submit that in fact the complainant who was a mobile credit officer in the bank had defrauded many persons including the appellants by receiving amounts from them in order to get credit in their favour from the bank and when they demanded their money he falsely implicated the appellants. Learned counsel lastly submit that appellants are entitled to acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that appellants are real accused, complainant had no previous enmity with the appellants and the witnesses are independent. They support the judgment of learned Trial Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their assistance. In the instant case, Mst. Hira Ijaz the alleged abductee was star witness of the prosecution. At the time of alleged abduction she was 10 years and 20 days of age, so she was best witness to prove the charge of abduction but for the reasons best known to the prosecution she was neither joined by the police in investigation nor produced as prosecution witness. The other important witness was Mst. Hamidan Bibi where the minor used to go to recite Holy Qur'an, was also not produced. To create dent in the prosecution case and to falsify the story of the prosecution, it may be noted here, that Exh.P.A. Complaint lodged by the complainant on 1-7- 1997 names of Haji Muhammad Iqbal, Tufail and Ijaz were given but through a supplementary statement the present appellants were named as accused which was made on 4-7-1991, three days after the first information report. It is important to note here, that in the supplementary statement the complainant stated that as the amount was to be given as ransom so the numbers of the currency notes should be noted down and for this purpose he took Waseem Tariq P.W. To National Bank, Rajana for getting currency notes of one thousand denomination and also while going to the appointed place for payment of ransom took Khalid Rasool P.W. With him. It is not understandable that the complainant being so active in noting down the numbers of the currency notes and while making the payment of ransom took Khalid Rasool P.W. With him, how it may happen that no information in this regard was given to the police when admittedly the complainant had got lodged F.I.R., with regard to abduction of his daughter. According to the statement of Khalid Rasool P.W. Which too was recorded on 4-7-1997, he was informed by the complainant that bargain has been struck with the accused for the payment of ransom. If the complainant could inform the P. Ws. Then there was no fun in not informing the police in this regard. Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. P.W.7 in his cross-examination admitted that complainant and Khalid Rasool P.W. Did not inform him about the bargain with the accused and the place of ransom and he too did not ask them for not informing the police. All this casts serious doubts with regard to veracity of the prosecution story set up in the supplementary statement. Over and above this so far as recording of supplementary statement is concerned, there is no provision in this regard in the whole Code of Criminal Procedure. The superior Courts of the country time and again have viewed such statements with skepticism for the reason that same is alien to the scheme of procedural law laid down in Cr.P.C. The prosecution story if viewed in whole leads us to the irresistible conclusion that there are doubts and doubts arising in the case, the benefit of which must have to go to the accused. It is also not worthy that the site plan Exh.P.V. Neither the name of the owner of the house is given nor he was cited or produced as a witness or an accused. The recoveries of cash amount and the fire-arms are also seem to have been planted on the appellants. On our considered view, prosecution has not been able to prove its case as set up in the supplementary statement against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. So, we while extending the benefit of doubt accept all the appeals filed by the appellants, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against them and acquit them of the charge. Appellants are in jail and they shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.