' GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- This judgment will dispose of the two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos.85 of 1996 and 93 of 1996 preferred by appellants Gul Muhammad, Rubdino alias Ayub and Anwar alias Anoo against the judgment, dated 7-3-1996 by Special Judge, Special Court No,1, S.T.A., Hyderabad in Special Case No,14 of 1993 registered under section 365-A read with section 109/34, P.P.C.
Convicting the appellants to suffer life imprisonment and forfeiture of their properties.
2. According to the prosecution the appellants alongwith co-accused Ali, Roshan Shah and absconding accused Khair Muhammad, Yousuf and Porho duly armed with K.K. And Rifles, with common intention formed an unlawful assembly and abducted Mir Khan Leghari, Alam alias Papoo and Abdul Rehman for ransom.
3. The trial Court framed the charge against five accused persons namely (1) Roshan Shah (acquitted under section 249-A on 8-6-1993), (2) Gul Muhammad, (3) Anwar alias Anoo, (4)
Rubdino alias Ayub and (5) Ali under section 365-A read with section 149, P.P.C. On 28-4-1993.
4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Abdul Rehman at Exh.13 who produced a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. At Exh.14, P.W.2 Mir Khan at Exh.15, P.W.3 Lakhano at Exh.18 who produced F.I.R.
Exh.19, P.W 4 Muhammad Yaqoob, A.C.M., Latifabad, at Exh.21 who produced statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of Baboo and Mir Khan and Mashirnama of identification at Exhs.22, 23 and 24 respectively, P.W.5 Ghulam Nabi at Exh.25, P.W.6 Taj Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar Barrage Hyderabad at Exh.26 who produced confessional statement of accused Gul Muhammad, Rubdino and Anoo at Exhs.27, 28 and 29 respectively, P.W.7 Mujahid Ali Shah, the S.I.P. Of Police Station Husri, at Exh.30 who produced the Mashirnama of scene of occurrence, recovery at Exh.31 and Mashirnama of recovery of weapons/arrest at Exh.32: P.W.8 Sanwan Khan, at Exh.33 who produced Mashirnama of Wardat at Exh.34 and Mashirnama of arrest of 27 persons, dated 17-12-1992 at Exh.35, P.W.9 Ahmed Khan at Exh.39, who produced Mashirnama of place of confinement of abductee Mir Khan at Exh.40, recovery of articles such as utensils at Exh.41, Mashirnama of 10 chits at Exhs.42/1 to 42/10 respectively. Thereafter, the prosecution closed their side vide statement Exh.43.
5. The appellant Gul Muhammad was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. At Exh.44, appellant Anwar alias Anoo at Exh.45, appellant Rubdino alias Ayub at Exh.46 so also co-accused Ali was examined at Exh.47. Appellants examined themselves in defence at Exh.48, Exh.49, and Exh.50. The appellants also produced in defence D.W.1 Arbab at Exh.51, D.W.2 Muhammad Soomar at Exh.52, D.W.3 Wazeer at Exh.53 and D.W.4 Talib at Exh.54, respectively and closed their side vide statement Exh.55. After evidence was concluded the impugned judgment was announced. The co-accused Roshan Shah was acquitted earlier under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And co-accused Ali was acquitted in the main judgment having been given benefit of doubt.
6. P.W.1 Abdul Rehman examined at Exh.13 was one of the abductee. According to him he was abducted by three or five persons while he was going on his camel cart; and that remained in jungle for about 10 days; and that he could identify only one kidnapper namely Ameero; and that there was another abductee namely Alam but he had not seen him during his confinement in jungle; and that he did not know where he was kept; and that there was an encounter between dacoits and the police and accused Amiro released him after he took oath in a mosque that he will pay the ransom after selling his camel cart; and that thereafter he narrated the incident to his Nekmard Nawab. He denied that he was produced before the Magistrate for recording his 164, Cr.P.C. Statements; and he refused to identify the present appellants as the culprits. He was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the S.P.P. He stated that his signatures were obtained by the S.H.O. Outside the office of Mukhtiarkar but he was never produced before the Magistrate. He admitted in cross-examination by the defence that during the entire period of confinement, he remained covered with a cloth and therefore, he could not see any of the culprits. This witness though was cross-examined by S.P.P. As to his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. But he was not confronted with the same nor his attention was drawn to the facts alleged to have been mentioned therein.
7. P.W.2 Mir Khan was examined on 6-6-1993, 22-9-1993 and 2-11-1993 at Exh.15. He stated that he alongwith P.W. Alam and Baboo Thahim were confronted with 3 abductees at about 9-30 p.m.
Dacoits had arrived with K.Ks. And rifles; the faces of the dacoits were open; they were taken to sugarcane cultivation; two of the kidnappers disclosed their names as Khair Muhammad and Sikandar; he also found two persons Yousuf and Ali who provided them the beddings; the dacoits in his presence looted other persons and detained one Abdul Rehman he alongwith Alam alias Papoo and Abdul Rehman was made to walk for about a mile; one of the decoits asked him to sit down and wait; and was warned that if he made any attempt to escape he would be killed; and when he was left alone at about 11-30 a.m. To 12-00 p.m. He ran away to the village; he in the parade identified Rubdino, Anwar and Gul Muhammad as persons who abducted him and Alam alias Papoo and Baboo Thahim; his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. In his cross- examination, he admitted that after 18/19 days of the incident police recorded his statement; his statement before the Police and Magistrate was recorded on the same day; that while he was sitting in the room of the Magistrate for identification parade the accused were sitting outside the Court; his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded after identification parade; he did not remember the number on which accused were standing in the line. He and other abductees identified the accused jointly in the identification parade; he stated in his 164, Cr.P.C. Statement that Haris of Bashir Halepoto had threatened him for abduction; Police had arrested 50/60 persons belonging to Bashir Halepoto and that police had challaned co-accused Ali from 50/60 persons; and released other persons after 20/30 days; he knew only one abductee namely Papoo Mandvani who was killed by the dacoits. A perusal of the examination-inchief of this witness shows that he alongwith Alam and Baboo Thahim were kidnapped by 3 dacoits; two of them disclosed their names as Khair Muhammad and Sikandar; and that beddings were brought by Yousuf and Ali; and that by one unnamed dacoit he was asked to sit down from where he escaped; in the identification parade, he identified Rubdino, Anwar and Gul Muhammad as the persons who have kidnapped them. However, when his statement scrutinized in detail it is found that in the first part of the examination-in-chief he disclosed the names of Khair Muhammad, Sikandar, Yousuf, Ali and a person who made him to sit down in the jungle whereas in the later part of the examination-in- chief he narrated about the identification of Rubdino, Anwar and Gul Muhammad as the persons who kidnapped them. The total number of the persons that he mentioned in all was 8 who were involved in the kidnapping. As observed above in the very beginning of the examination-in-chief he stated that they were kidnapped by 3 persons two of them were Khair Muhammad and Sikandar. The identification of Rubdino, Anwar and Gul Muhammad by this witness, therefore, becomes doubtful. It shall also be pertinent to note that his 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was produced by P.W. Muhammad Yaqoob on 14-11-1993, as Exh.23 and on its perusal it transpired that it did not bear his signature, but that of P.W. Baboo, who was given up by prosecution vide statement Exh.20.
8. P.W.3 Lakhano at Exh.18 stated that in December, 1992 Baboo Thahim came to him and informed that his nephew Mir Khan and Alam Papoo have been abducted; he was set free and other two persons were taken away by dacoits; then he narrated the incident to Nekmerd Haji Shafi Muhammad who told him to lodge the report; he lodged report, at Police Station Pabbun, which he produced as Exh.19. He stated that after 4 days of the incident his nephew Mir Khan came to him and informed that he was set free due to his poverty whose statement was recorded by the police after 16/17 days. According to this witness, he had gone alongwith Mir Khan to the Court for identification parade and that the accused were not in the police van while going to the Court.
There is nothing material in the evidence of the witness, which can help the prosecution case.
9. P.W.4 Muhammad Yaqoob, the Additional City Magistrate stated that 3 witnesses namely Baboo, Mir Khan and Abdul Rehman were produced before him for recording their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C.; at the time of recording of evidence the 3 accused namely Anwar, Gul Muhammad and Rubdino were present. This witness produced statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of 3 P.Ws. At Exhs.22, 23 and 24. The statement of Baboo Exh.22 bears the L.T.I. Of Mir Khan whereas that of Mir Khan Exh.23 bears the L.T.I. Of Baboo. This goes to show the inefficiency of Magistrate and further that the statements were not recorded as prescribed by law. In cross- examination at one stage he stated that it was due to mistake of the Reader who obtained the L.T.I.
Of Mir Khan on the statement of Baboo and L.T.I. Of Baboo on the statement of Mir Khan. Then he said that both witnesses affixed their L.T.Is. On their respective statements but their names are written wrongly. These statements cannot be considered as good evidence. In fact the Magistrate has not performed his duty properly and he is liable to a disciplinary action and it can safely be said that the statements were not recorded by him. The statement of P.W. Abdul Rehman recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Exh.14 has already been denied by him in his deposition. This witness has also produced the Mashirnama of identification parade at Exh.24. According to this witness all the accused were mixed up with 20/25 dummies out of which the prosecution witnesses identified them. It has not been explained by the Magistrate as to why separate identification parades were not held by mixing each of them with 20/25 dummies. Putting all the accused persons in one identification parade was not a safe procedure of identification. As to the identification and 164, Cr.P.C. Statement he admits that first the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded and one hour thereafter the identification parade was held. It means that during the proceedings of 164, Cr.P.C.
The accused were seen by the P.Ws. Before being identified in the parade. If it is so then the identification parade losts its sanctity absolutely and cannot be relied upon. Once again the incompetence and inefficiency of the Magistrate is obvious. It is also admitted that the 164, Cr.P.C.
Statements were recorded by his Reader and he only recorded the certificate under his hand. The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence as to the proceedings under section 164, Cr.P.C. And also the identification parade.
10. P.W.5 Ghulam Nabi is an A.S.-I. Of Police Station Tando Jam. According to him after receiving the message on wireless he alongwith the S.H.O. Muhammad Nawaz Arain reached the place of incident. There he also found other police force. According to him at about 1-15 p.m. The kidnappers/dacoits surrendered themselves. The accused who surrendered were Gul Muhammad, Rubdino and Anwar Khatti; these accused informed the police that one of the kidnapper& Papoo Mandvani had been killed by accused Amiro. The 3 accused were arrested alongwith the weapons; and that all the 3 surrendered accused were handed over alongwith weapons to another force; and that dead body of abductee Papoo Mandvani was found under chains; and that he had sustained bullet injury on his neck and right shoulder; and that they have also found dead body of accused Amiro alongwith one K.K. And live ammunition; and that the fire-arms recovered from the dacoits were taken away by Army Authorities with them. In the cross-examination he stated that no person from village gathered at the place of Wardat; and that no relative of the abductees were there; and that abductee Abdul Rehman reached when there was exchange of fire; and that he had not seen the dacoits who fired at them; and that he had stated in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement that they had rescued abductee Abdul Rehman safely from the dacoits; and that he had stated in 161, Cr.P.C. Statement that arinour. Vehicle in which they were riding had received bullet Marks but S- S.H.O. Might have missed to mention it and that he had stated in his 161, Cr:P.C, statement that after extinguishing fire on the clothes of deceased dacoit Amiro they taken over his dead body. But in Court, he denied that the dead body of Amiro was burnt and stated that his clothes were burnt; and that the Army Personnel had not allowed any private person to come. Near the place of Wardat; he, however, denied that Papoo Mandvani was killed by the police due to error; and he also denied that no weapons were recovered from the accused. It is pertinent to note that no chains in which the dead body of deceased Papoo Mandvani was found were produced in Court. Likewise none of the weapons recovered from the possession of dacoits were ever produced in Court for identification. Even there is no report of Chemical Forensic Laboratory to that effect that they had inspected/examined any weapon in this case: A perusal of the deposition of this witness shows that it cannot safely be relied upon to support the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.6 Taj Muhammad is the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Matiari. According to him on 7-1-1973 he received a letter from the District Magistrate, Hyderabad through S.H.O. For recording confession of the appellant namely Gul Muhammad, Anwar alias 'Moo and Rubdino and Ayub; he completed all legal formalities before recording 'confessional statements of the accused/appellant; first he recorded the confessional statement of appellant Gul Muhammad, which is Exh.27; second he recorded confessional statement of appellant Rubdino alias Ayub and which is Exh.28; in the last he recorded confessional statement of appellant Anwar alias Anoo which is Exh.29. In the cross- examination he stated that S.H.O. Contacted him at about 12 noon; he admitted that the Police Station Hoosri was not within his jurisdiction and it is in the jurisdiction of Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad; and that there were many Magistrates sitting in. The Hyderabad. In cross he admitted that in all the three confessions there is no question answer writtert; and that he had not put specific questions to accused persons as to in which crime they were giving confessional statement; and that no crime number and sections of P.P.C. Are mentioned in the confession; and that in Exh.28 which is the confession of accused Rubdino there was overwriting on the timings of recording the confessional statements; he admitted that the answers of accused persons in all the three statements are stereotyped. According to him the last confession was recorded at about 9- 00 p.m. And that he had not given second warning to the accused persons as it was not provided in the confessional performas; and that it is not mentioned in the confessional statements that the contents of confession were read over to the accused persons and they affixed their L.T.I. After admitting its contents; he, however, denied that the accused were not produced before him for recording the confessional statements.
12. A perusal of his evidence shows that he has been casual and remiss and has not taken full care and caution which is necessary for recording the confessions of the accused. His evidence does not inspire confidence.
13. P.W.7 Mujahid Ali Shah was S.I.P. Of Police Station Hoosri. According to him the S.H.O. Hoosri received wireless information about the incident on 25-12-1995 and he alongwith the S.H.O. Went to the place of incident after 6-00 a.m. On the police mobile; reached the lands of Rashid Muhajir and that there he came to know that Alam Khan alias Papoo Mandvani and Abdul Rehman were confined by the dacoits in the lands of Rashid Muhajir; Police Officers surrounded sugarcane cultivation; and that the S.H.O. Ahmed Khan Bhurgari sought help from the higher Authorities on the wireless; and that in response thereto police force and other law enforcement agencies reached there; and that the said S.H.O. On megaphone warned the dacoits to surrender alongwith the abductees; and that when the dacoits failed to surrender the S.H.O. And other Police Officer and Army Personnels rode on the Armour vehicle and went inside the cultivation; and that on their entering there the dacoits started firing upon them; and that Abdul Rehman was got released from the dacoits; and that at about 10-15 p.m. The dacoits surrendered and informed that one of their companion namely Amiroo was killed in encounter; that the said Amiroo killed Papoo Mandhvani the abductee; the three dacoits namely Gul Muhammad, Anwar alias Anoo and Rubdino surrendered alongwith the weapons; they ' were arrested and Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared. The said Mashirnama was produced at Exh.31. Police found the dead body of Alam alias Papoo Mandvani with its hand tied with chains; and they also found the dead body of Atniroo alongwith his weapon i.e, K.K. Which was secured by the police, The arms and ammunition secured from the dacoits were taken away by the Army Personnel on executing a receipt. This witness was cross-examined and in cross he had not been able to give the details of the adjacent cultivation and their owners. He admitted that none of the private person was taken by them to the place of incident. He admitted that he had not gone into the sugarcane cultivation but had taken the position outside thereof; and that since he was outside the sugarcane cultivation he could not see as to what happened when armour vehicle entered the cultivation; and that he only heard firing.
He further admitted that none of the Police Officer/Army Personnel was injured during the firing; and that the armour vehicle returned after 10/15 minutes from the cultivation alongwith Abdul Rehman abductee who was handed over to the S.S.P., Hyderabad; he had not seen the armour vehicle going inside the sugarcane cultivation second time. He denied that the S.H.Os. Ahmed Khan Bhurgari and Muhammad Nawaz arrested about 50/60 relatives of the accused. The weapons alleged to have been recovered were not produced in the Court. In examination-in-chief he stated that since vehicle entered into the sugarcane cultivation the dacoits started firing on them; and in the meantime the armour vehicle got Abdul Rehman released from the clutches of the dacoits. In cross he said that he was outside the cultivation and he could not see actually what happened inside. His evidence at the most supports the fact that three appellants appeared before the police and surrendered their weapons but this also becomes doubtful in view of the fact that the weapons were never produced in the Court by the prosecution at any time.
14. P.W.8 Sanwan Khan is the driver and was a Mashir of place of Wardat. He produced Exh.34; he was also made Mashir of inquest report. In cross-examination he admitted that police in his presence raided the house of Bashir Halipoto and arrested about 27 persons on 17-2-1992. He produced Mashirnama Exh.35. He further admitted that other persons were also arrested from other villages. The evidence of this witness goes to show that there had been recovery of dead body of the deceased and that number of persons were arrested by the police in this case.
15. P.W.9 Ahmed Khan was the S.H.O. Of Police Station Hoosri. According to him on 12-12-1992 he came to know that 2 persons had been abducted, therefore, he proceeded to.The place of Wardat and verified the Mashirnama of Wardat Exh.34 which had already been prepared by S.I.P. Noor Hussain and that he also sought help of footprints tracker; and that on 15-12-1992 Mir Khan abductee appeared before him and informed that Papoo Mandvani and Baboo Thahim were abducted by some armed dacoits and were taken to sugaicane cultivation; and that the two of the three dacoits namely Sikandar Khashkheli and Khair Muhammad showed their faces and disclosed their names but the 3rd one though showed face but did not disclose his name; alleged abduction was for the purpose of ransom; and that three nights and 3 days during his confinement he saw Ali Machi, Yousuf Machi and Porho Leghari; and that in presence of the abductee, the dacoit abducted one camel cart driver and looted other persons on Fulkara Road; and that Police and Law Enforcement Agencies came there and he taking advantage got himself released and reached the police. On 17-12-1992 Mir Khan took them to point out the place of incident and the place of confinement of which he prepared Mashirnama Exh.40; Mir Khan also took him to the house of Ali Machi, Yousuf Machi where they were served with the meals during confinement; he recovered certain articles like Tape-recorders from the place of incident and prepared Mashirnamas Exh.41; and that he also found some ransom chits which he produced at Exh.42/1 to Exh.42/10; and that on 25-12-1992 he proceeded to investigate the crime and reached the cultivation of Rashid Muhajir where he came to know that Papoo Mandvani and Abdul Rehman were confined; and encircled whole cultivation and informed higher Authorities and Law Enforcing Agency who arrived there and that he warned culprits to hand over custody of the abductees; and that other police also came over with two armour vehicles for help and he went inside to the cultivation in one of the armour vehicle and got released abductee Abdul Rehman from the dacoits; and that at 1-15 p.m. Three dacoits surrendered before them; informed him that abductee Papoo Mandvani was killed by accused Amiroo and accused Amiroo was killed in the encounter; and that the arms and ammunition surrendered by the dacoits were seized by the police; and that he went inside and found the dead bodies of dacoit Amiroo, and abductee Papoo Mandvani; he secured the same and prepared Mashirnama at Exh.31; and also prepared Mashirnama of arrest of accused at Exh.32; and that he lodged two separate reports against the accused. He identified the accused present in Court as the persons who were arrested by him. In cross-examination he stated that about 7/8 persons from adjacent villages arrived at the place of Wardat at the time of encounter; and that P.W. Mir Khan and other villagers also arrived there; and that Mir Khan had arrived there after arrival of the police; and that he had not recorded statement of any private person in the case but only recorded the statement of Police Officers; and that he had not recorded statement of Rashid Muhajir in whose lands encounter took place as he did not reside there; and that about 27 persons of Bashir Halipoto were arrested by him who remained in the custody for some days for investigation; and that he had not challaned those persons for lack of evidence. The earlier witness P.W. Ghulam Nabi, A.S.-I. Had stated that no person from village gathered at the place of Wardat but this witness stated that Mir Khan was there alongwith his villagers. He failed to explain as to why the police failed to examine any private witness and none was produced in Court to support the prosecution.
16. Thereafter, the appellant Gul Muhammad, Anwar, Rubdino and Ali were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied the allegations made against them. Appellant Gul Muhammad, Anwar and Rubdino stated that they were already under the custody of the law enforcement agencies when the alleged incident took place. Gul Muhammad, Anwar and Rubdino examined themselves in their defence and were cross-examined by the Prosecutor. In his deposition Gul Muhammad has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case and further stated that no confessional statement was recorded before the Magistrate nor he was produced in any Court for that purpose or for the purpose of identification parade. He also denied to have surrendered any arms and ammunition. Anwar also denied that he was produced before any Magistrate for recording confessional statement or for identification parade. He alleged that the police let out Yar Muhammad, Soomar and Arbab after receiving illegal gratification. Appellant Rubdino also stated that he was not produced before any Magistrate for confessional statement or for identification parade and submitted that he was already in custody of police at the time of incident. Muhammad Soomar was produced as one of the defence witness who has stated that he alongwith accused Gul Muhammad, Rubdino, Anwar, D.Ws. Wazir, Arbab and others were arrested by the police and were locked-up in Police Station, Tando Jam prior to the incident; and that he and said D.Ws. And villagers were released after taking an amount of Rs,25,000 from each person and similar demand from appellants was made but they could not make the payment, therefore, they were involved in this case. He was cross-examined by the Prosecutor wherein he also stated that he was arrested with the accused persons one week prior to the incident. Another D.W. Wazir stated that he is real brother of the appellant Rubdino. He stated that he was also arrested with his brother by Tando Jam Police and the Law Enforcement Agencies one week prior to the incident. He and other persons were released after taking money. The accused Anwar, Gul Muhammad and Rubdino could not make the payment as such they were implicated in this case. In cross he stated that he had not made any application to the higher Authorities about the police due to fear; and that men of Zamindar Bashir Halipoto were also confined in police lock-up for about 20/25 days. D.W. Talib stated that he was arrested alongwith villagers in respect of the present matter; accused Gul Muhammad was also in the same lock-up; police after receiving Rs,30,000 from him and other villagers released them; accused Gul Muhammad did not pay the amount so he was implicated in this case. In cross-examination he denied that he is related to the accused. He also said that, he had not made any application to the higher Authorities about the conduct of the police.
17. In view of the discussion and analysis of the evidence brought on record of the prosecution, it is found that initially appellants were not named in the F.I.R. The accused Ali has been acquitted almost on the same evidence and no appeal has been filed against his acquittal; one of the abductee namely Abdul Rehman had been declared hostile and he had not identified the present appellant in Court and also denied the statement made by him under section 164, Cr.P.C.; the evidence of Mir Khan as observed above do not inspire confidence and it consists of number of contradictions; P.W. Lakhano is not an eye-witness and he had stated only what Baboo Thahim had informed him about the incident; whereas Baboo Thahim was not produced in Court and he was given up by the prosecution P.W.4 Muhammad Yaqoob is Additional City Magistrate who recorded the statement of Baboo Thahim and Mir Khan and his performance had been discussed above; the way he conducted proceedings of 164, Cr.P.C. Are absolutely unreliable his evidence further damaged the case when he admitted in cross-examination the fact that he recorded statement of witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. In presence of the accused and thereafter the same accused were put to identification parade; P.W. Ghulam Nabi is an A.S.-I. Of Police Station Tando Jam who went inside cultivation on the armour vehicle, though he stated that there were exchange of fire but neither any ammunition nor empties have been recovered from the place of incident; none of the arms and ammunition recovered from the accused surrendered before the police have been produced in Court; the armour vehicie is said to have been hit by bullets but the same was not produced in Court. The chains with which the body of the abductee Papoo Mandvani was chained has not been produced in Court; P.W. Taj Muhammad is a Mukhtiarkar who recorded confessional statement as discussed above. He has been unable to satisfy that he took full precautions before recording confessional statements; P.W. Mujahid Ali Shah was an S.I.P.; he admitted that he was outside the sugarcane cultivation and he could not see what happened inside when the armour vehicle entered there; his statement is stereotyped as that of other witnesses; he was a Mashir of recovery of fire-arms from the dacoiis but as observed above these fire-arms were not produced in Court. A perusal of evidence of this witness shows that he has not been honest in giving evidence and cannot be relied upon; P.W. Sanwan Khan is a formal witness as a Mashir of Wardat and his evidence does not improve the case of the prosecution; the evidence of Ahmed Khan, the S.H.O. Suffers with number of discrepancies and it cannot be considered as a base for convicting the appellants; there has been no evidence to the effect that the appellant demanded ransom or that it was paid to them. The three appellants had examined themselves on oath before the Court and stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter.
While recording their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. They have not been shown arms alleged to have been recovered from them. D.Ws. Examined by the appellants are unanimous that the appellants were already in custody and they were not released since they failed to make payment of money demanded by police from them. These were the reasons for which by short order, dated 29-9-2000 we allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment.