' Criminal Appeal No,61 of 1999 filed by Khalid Rasheed alias Gogi and Criminal Appeal No,2 of 2000 filed by Ijaz Ahmad arise out of the judgment dated 16-12-1999 passed by Rana Zahid Mehmood, Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Multan. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment these are being decided by this single judgment,
2. The appellants Khalid Rasheed alias Gogi and ljaz Ahmad along with one Muhammad Ajmal (acquitted co-accused) were sent up for trial before the Special Court for Offences under sections 365-A/511/34, P.P.C. The learned trial Court charged the accused under sections 365-A/34/511/ 468/34/471, P.P.C. And after the conclusion of trial acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ajmal but convicted the appellants under sections 365-A/34/511, P.P.C. And sentenced them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants were also convicted under sections 468/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs,10,000 each was also imposed on the appellants and in default of payment of 'fine the appellants were to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Benefit of section .382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellants and the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The law was set in motion through a written complain ,Exh.P.A handed over by Syed Muhammad Tahseen Jafferi, P.W.1 to Muhammad Asif, S.I. At 9-00 a.m. On 13-5-1999 within the vicinity of Sunrise Public School M-Block, Arifwala. On the basis of the complaint formal F.I.R. No,248 of 1999 Exh.P.A/1 was registered at Police {{ PART MISS IN ALSO A BOOK}} ' According to the F. T. R. The Lomplainant was working as Principal of Sunrise Public School, wherein about 800 students Consisting of boys' and girls' were studying. One day prior to the occurrence the complainant received a telephone that eyesight of Mst. Tehrima Siddique, a student of class-VI, was to be checked by a doctor and, therefore, the phone caller was on his way to take her along with him. The caller disclosed his name as Asad but on that day no one came to take along Mst.
Tehrima Siddique. According to the complaint on 13-5-1999 at about 8-15 a.m. The complainant received a phone call who identified himself as Asad that his servant was arriving at the school in a car and Mst. Tehrima Siddique should be sent with him so that her eye-sight could be checked by the doctor. After five or ten minutes after the receipt of phone call the appellant Khalid entered the office of P.W.1 and produced a chit Exh.P.B which was ostensibly written by Ali Asad and asked that the child should be sent with him. On suspicion P.W.1 rang up the house of the afore-mentioned student which was received by Asad, P.W.3 and he denied that he had sent any one for bringing Mst. Tehrima Siddique. Meanwhile, P.Ws. Muhammad Amjad and Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, P.W.2 also entered in the office of the complainant and they could not identify Khalid appellant who was present in the office of P.W.1, therefore, Ijaz appellant who was sitting in the car and the driver of the car were also summoned in the, office of P.W.1. On inquiry by Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, P.W.2 Khalid and Ijaz appellants admitted their mistake and stated that they wanted to abduct the child for ransom and had forged the chit Exh.P.B. Ali Asad, P.W.3 and Ch. Ahmad Din relatives of Mst. Tehrima Siddique reached the school and they stated that they have no relationship with the appellants Khalid and Ijaz and that no chit was ever given to the appellants by them. In the presence of all, the appellants admitted that they had taken this task to abduct the child and received ransom.
5. The S.H.O., City Arifwala was informed teleplionically who reached the school alongwith other police officials and the P.W.1 handed over a written complaint Exh.P.A to him. On the same date P.W.5 took into possession the chit and lOyota-Car vide memo. Exhs.P.B & C which was attested by Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.2. P.W.5 also recovered a small bottle from the pocket of shirt worn by Khalid Rasheed appellant vide Exh.P.D in the presence of the witnesses P.W.2 and Muhammad Amjad who was not produced. During the trial prosecution produced five witnesses in support of its case.
Muhammad Tahseen Jafferi, P.W.1, Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2, Ali Asad P.W.3 stated about the occurrence, Allah Ditta P.W.4, stated that he recorded the formal F.I.R. While P.W.5 stated about receiving of complaint and investigation of the case. He also deposed about the recoveries. After the completion of trial statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Both the appellants denied the charge. Appellant Khalid Rasheed stated that he was roped in the case because of party faction as his family was politically opposed to Ex-MPA Muhammad Shafiq while appellant Ijaz Ahmad stated that he and his father taught Holy Qura'n and children of Muhammad .Siddique including Mst. Tehrima Siddique were their pupil. He further stated that the parents of Mst.
Tehrima Siddique were willing to marry her with the appellant but Muhammad Shafiq, MPA considered it as his family disgrace and, therefore, he was roped in a false case. The appellants did not appear as witnesses in their defence as contemplated by section 340(2), Cr. P.C. However, Sohail and Syed Qamar Abbas were produced as D.W.1 and D.W.2. Both the v. Finesses stated that Khalid Rasheed was not arrested while he was present in the school.
6. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellants have stated that they would not challenge the conviction as no case under sections 365-A/34/511, P.P.C. Was made out against the appellants and at the maximum a case under sections 363/511, P.P.C. Was made out against the appellants. They further sought reduction in the sentence in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have stated that as the conviction of the appellants was being maintained they had no objection because quantum of sentence was within the discretion of the Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment. It has been noticed that both the appellants were apprehended at the spot. P.W.1, Syed Muhammad Tahseen Jafferi was Principal of the school had no enmity, whatsoever, with the appellants so as to involve them in this case falsely. He appeared before the learned .Trial Court and has stood the test of cross-examination. No flaw could be pointed out in his statement. His statement is duly corroborated by the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 Muhammad Iqbal, and All Asad. These P.Ws. Are also not inimical to the appellants and have given a straight forward account, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants are justified in not challenging the conviction. The recovery of small bottle containing same intoxicant is of no help to the prosecution as the same was never sent to any Chemical Examiner. However, it has been proved during the trial that chit Exh.P.B which contained forged signature and message was produced by the appellant Khalid before the Principal.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the evidence on record.' The allegation that the appellants wanted to abduct Mst. Tehrima Siddique for ransom is not borne out by the record of the case as the sole evidence relating to the afore-mentioned offence is based on the confession of the appellants before the P.Ws. According to the F.I.R. And the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 a joint confession was made and the exact words of the appellants have not been narrated. Joint confession is not admissible in evidence. Only P.W.3 had stated that both the appellants confessed independently about their guilt. No amount of `Tawaan' has been mentioned by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. No effort was made to collect incriminating evidence to the effect that the appellants had planned to claim ransom after abduction of Mst. Tehrima Siddique. Therefore, in the circumstances while maintaining the conviction of the appellants I alter the same from sections 365A/34/511, P.P.C. To sections 363/511/34, P.P.C. The appellants are in jail for about three years. Therefore, I sentence them to the punishment they have already undergone. Conviction under section 468/34, P.P.C. Is maintained but the sentence is reduced from three years' rigorous imprisonment to that already undergone by the appellants. The amount of fine is reduced from Rs, 10,000 each to Rs,5,000 each and in default of payment of fine the appellants would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one .Month each. Both the sentences would run concurrently and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. ' extended to the appellants is maintained.
9. With the above modifications the appeals are dismissed.