This appeal is directed against the judgment recorded by Mr. Arshad Mehmood Cheema, learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Multan, in case F.I.R. No.453, dated 26-10-2000, registered under section 365-A, P.P.C. With Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari, whereby, he has convicted the appellant under the same and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with confiscation of his property.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the above--mentioned case was registered on the statement of Muhammad Zulfiqar (P.W.4).
He in his statement before police has mentioned that he is resident of Chak No. 168/9-L and is Zimindar. His son Ghulam Rasool aged about 16/17 years is student of 1st year in Government College, Burewala. On 3-10-2000, in the morning he went to college. He when did not return till evening, he became worried. After search he lodged Rapat No.9 with Police Station City Burewala on 5-10-2000. The same evening at about 5-00 p.m. He received a telephone call from an unknown person that his missing son was with them. The caller demanded Rs.5,00,000 from him for the release of his son. He as per his direction alongwith police reached Chichawatni-Harrapa Road on 7-10-2000 at about 9-00 p.m., but the accused did not come there. He then went back to his house.
At about 10-00 p.m. The same day he again received telephone call from that person, who threatened him that if he again informed the police and brought them with him, he then will get the dead body of his son. He directed him to himself alone brine the amount. He beseached him and.
Assured that he will not do so again. On 8-10-2000, he on his direction went to S.P. Canal Bridge within the area of Chat. No.124/EB, Pakpattan Sharif. There two persons, the descriptions of whom have beer given therein, met him. They directed him reach BTM Chowk, Burewala at 6-30 p.m He when reached there, found a man who description has also been given therein, met --him. He took him to Canal Jhal Sial within the area of Luddan through different passages. There another man with chordless phone, whose description too has been given therein, met him. He made him to talk d phone with his son. He promised with him s come again with money. On 9-10-2000 at about 7-00 p.m. Again a call on another telephone was received at his house. The caller dropped the message for him to read --Adda Iqbal Nagar at about 6-30 p.m. The same day. He reached there and found the man, whose description has been giver therein, met him. He directed him to react: Jamal Chowk, Pakpattan Sharif at 8-00 p.m. He as per direction, when reached Okanwala Bangla, there persons in vehicles, who were on his guard met him. He informed their about Jamal Chowk and went towards the same. He when reached there, a Toyota Corola Car No.3939/SLD Model 1976 was there. The persons in the car signalled him to follow them. He followed the car and through different routes reached Ratta Tibba. Them five persons armed with lethal weapons alighted down and they received amount of ransom from him and also took his car and directed him to wait for the arrival of his son. They after one hour of the some brought his son there. Among those persons, he saw in the light of the car Muhammad Anwar alias Lalu son of Muhammad Sharif, his co--villager. The accused took away with them his vehicle as well. He and his son on foot reached Ratta Tibba and from there boarded a truck and came towards Vehari. In the way,, he found his car present at the road and nobody was there with it. The key of the same was in it. They left the truck and took the car and reached his house. His son told him that on.3-10-2000 at about 11-00 a.m. He was sitting in the plot of the college and a person whose description has been given, came to him and said that his father has met with an accident and was calling him to hospital. He accompanied him to a car in which two persons were present. He boarded the car and went towards the hospital with them. In the way, the man on the rear seat put handkerchief on his nose due to which he became unconscious. He when gained consciousness found himself in a house with high walls. His leg was chained and two men and two women were there to guard him. The accused Muhammad Anwar alias Lalu was also among the persons, who had brought him back.
3. Muhammad Afzal, S.-I./S.H.O. Of the aforesaid police station (P.W.5) recorded his said statement and read it over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness.
4. The S.H.O. Sent the statement Exh.PA/1 to the police station for formal registration of case through Muhammad Iqbal Constable. Nisar Ahmad, H.C. Muharrar of the aforesaid Police Station on 26-10- 2000 has recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PA.
5. The S.H.O next day recorded the statement of Ghulam Rasool abductee and on his pointation prepared site plan Exh.PB of the place, wherefrom, he was abducted. The same day, on his pointation and that of Muhammad Zulfiqar complainant, he prepared site plan Exh.PC of the place of handing over of the former (abductee) to the later (complainant).
6. After investigation the accused was challaned to Court. On 6-9-2001 he was formally charged under section 365--P.P.C. Read with section 7(e) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. He pleaded not guilty.
7. The prosecution produced witnesses in support of its case. They Nisar Ahmad, H.C. (P. W.1), Muhammad Ayyub, A.S.-I. (P.W.2), Muhammad Amin (P.W.3), Zulfiqar complainant (P.W.4).
Muhammad Afzal, S.-I. (P. W.5), Ghulam: Rasool abductee (P. W.6), Iftikhar Ahmad Constable (P.W.7) and Saif Ali Bandesh. Inspector (P.W.8),
8. Noorullah, Constable was given up as being unnecessary.
9. Naseer Ahmad has recorded formal F. I. R. Exh.PA.
10. Muhammad Ayyub, A.S.-I direction of S.P., Vehari had sought permission from Illaqa Magistrate; associate accused Muhammad Anwar alias Lalu in the investigation, who was in Central Jail, Sahiwal. He associated him and 3-5-2001 obtained his physical remand.
11. Muhammad Amin, S. ---I has --interrogated the accused when he was produced before him by Muhammad Asghar A.S.-I. From Sahiwal Jail. He made contradictory statements before him. No recovery was effected from him. He then again sent him to Jail.
12. Muhammad Zulfiqar has narrated the incident and has also stated that he has lodged complaint Exh.PA/1.
13. Muhammad Afzal, S.-I. Has deposed about the recording of statement Exh.PA/1 of Muhammad Zulfiqar and preparation of site plans mentioned above.
14. Ghulam Rasool has also narrated the incident of his abduction and recovery after payment of ransom.
15. Iftikhar Ahmad, Constable is attesting witness of recovery memo. Of Car No.3939/SLD Exh.PD.
16. Saif Ali Bandesha, Inspector has taken that car into possession vide memo. Exh.PD.
17. On the closure of the prosecution case, appellant/accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence stating that he was servant of the complainant. He has helped his rival candidate Saif- ur-Rehman's in the election. He wanted to use him against said Saif-ur-Rehman's in fabricating a criminal case against him but he refused and due to this annoyance, he has involved him in the instant case.
18. He has produced Sajid Ali, Lecturer, Government College, Burewala (D.W.1), Muhammad Akram (D.W.2) and Akbar Ail (D.W.3) in his evidence. However, he himself did not opt to depose on Oath in disproof of the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence as required under section 340 (2), Cr.P.C.
19. Sajid Ali, Lecturer, has stated that on 3-10-2000 Ghulam Rasool (abductee) was absent from his class and he continued to be so from 7-9-2000 to 31-10-2000 and his name was struck of the roll.
He was readmitted in the college. He changed his subjects after 31-10-2000.
20. Muhammad Akram has stated that he was driver of the complainant, who has involved the appellant due to the reason that he had rivalry with said Saif-ur-Rehman's. He had compelled him to become witness against him in the case of the abduction of his son for reason. On their refusal, he has expelled him from service. He next stated that in the local bodies elections of 2001, they had supported Saif-ur-Rehman's. The appellant was employee of Muhammad Akbar son of Faqir Ali, Chak No. 168/9-L. The case is false and fabricated.
21. Akbar Ali has stated that in May, 2001, he tock the accused with him to Chak No.106/6-R, where he started cultivating the land with him on 1/8 share. He remained there up to December, 2001 and did not leave that place for a single day. He had joined the investigation but the police did not pay heed to his version about the innocence of the appellant.
22. He (appellant) has also tendered in evidence the copy of Writ Petition No. 11014 of 2000 (Exh.DB), copy of order, dated 17-10-2000 (Exh.DC), the copy of record under section 173, Cr.P.C. Exh.DD and report of E.T.O., Sahiwal, Exh.DE in his defence.
23. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that charge against the appellant stood proved. It with the same convicted and sentenced him as stated above. However, it did not convict him under section 7(e) of the Act (supra).
24. He feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment has come up with this appeal.
25. I have heard his learned counsel as well as the learned State Counsel.
26. His learned counsel has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against him beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, as there are material contradictions inter se the statement of P.W.4 and P. W.6; that they have improved their case at the trial than the one before police; that no recovery of ransom amount was effected from him; that the complainant/P. W.4 has not given satisfactory account of collection of ransom amount; that the evidence of D.W.1, who is College Lecturer has established that the abductee was absent from college on the relevant day and so the allegations in the evidence of his abduction there from has not been established above doubt; that the evidence of remaining two D.Ws. Has established that the appellant/accused has been involved falsely as the complainant wanted to use him against has rival in election namely Saif-ur-Rehman's against whom he intended to fabricate a criminal case, but on his refusal to accomplish his such design, he turned hostile to him and implicated him falsely in this case; and that his version ought to have been considered in juxtaposition to the prosecution evidence and had it been done so it could be clear that his involvement in the case was false and was due to the above assigned reason and so his version has wrongly been rejected and his evidence wrongly discarded.
27. As against the same, learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment saying that P.W.4 and P.W.6 were independent and trustworthy witnesses; that there is no material contradiction inter se their statements and they have not at all improved their case at the trial than the one before the police; that non-recovery of ransom amount is of no adverse consequence to the prosecution case; that the complainant and the abductee had no animus at all towards him (appellant); that defence plea is absolutely hollow as in case the complainant had intended to involve his adversary Saif-ur--Reman, there was nothing in his way to do so and he could directly involve him in the case instead of through the appellant; that the story of the complainant and the abductee is quite natural; that defence plea is made up one and it was considered in juxtaposition to the prosecution evidence and it was rightly rejected being so; that the evidence of D. W.1 is immaterial when the charge of abduction of Ghulam Rasool P. W.6 stood established on record by the independent evidence of his own and that of his father; that D. W.2 is the real brother of the appellant while the story of D.W.3 of cultivation of land by the appellant alongwith him has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence; that documentary evidence produced by the appellant has no bearing on the case and it was rightly discarded; and that the appellant has committed a very heinous crime so he was rightly convicted and sentenced.
28. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the sides with the help of the record.
29. As regards the charge of abduction of abductee for ransom and his recovery after payment of the aforesaid amount, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of P. W.4 and P. W.6. P. W.4 has given the detailed narration of the occurrence and recovery of his son after payment of ransom Rs.5,00,000. He in the same has clearly mentioned that the appellant was among the accused, when his son was released by them. He has also stated that his son after recovery has told him and other people that the appellant was sitting on the front seat with the driver when he was abducted.
30. The abductee Ghulam Rasool has also narrated the complete story of his abduction from the college and his detention by the accused in a house with high walls and then his release by them after receipt of ransom amount Rs.5,00,000 from his father. He has categorically stated that the appellant Muhammad Anwar alias Lalu was present on the front seat with the driver when he was abducted from the college. According to him, the other persons were sitting in the car when he was brought from, the college by the man with beard. The appellant as per his, own showing was their servant. So, there could be no mistake with him about his identity. It was day time and he had identified him to be in the car in which he was taken away from the college.
31. There is consistency and harmony in his evidence and that of his father as regards the major details of the incident and recovery of the abductee. His learned counsel has not been able to point out any major or material contradiction inter se their statements as well as any improvement by them at the trial than before the police.
32. Here, I may mention that minor discrepancy, if there may be any, will have no adverse effect qua their evidence. However, I have not been able to find out any dishonest improvement in their statement at the trial than the one before the police. Here it may also be mentioned that minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are bound to occur in ordinary course of nature by the passage of time or fallability of human memory.
However, both these P.Ws. Are unanimous about the involvement of the appellant in the matter.
33. The defence plea that the appellant has falsely been involved as the complainant wanted to use him against his rival Saif-ur---Rehman's by manoeuvring a case against him but he refused, is absolutely hollow and without any substance. Because the complainant (P.W.4) if at all wanted to rope in his adversary Saif-ur-Rehman's in a criminal case, it was golden opportunity for him to have done so in the instant case, but he has not done so. The appellant admittedly was his servant.
He had no other enmity or grouse against him. It is noteable that it is the own case of the appellant that he had no other enmity with him except according to him that he had refused to become tool in his hands against Saif-ur-Rehman's for his intended implication in some case about which I have already discussed above that the same is hollow plea.
34. As he (complainant) when had no other direct or indirect enmity with him then why he will involve him falsely in the instant case is far from comprehension. So, the defence plea was worth rejection and it has rightfully been rejected.
35. The evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3, therefore, due to this reason has also rightly been discarded as it was on the line of the said plea.
The evidence of D.W.1 that the abudetee was absent from college on the relevant day is hardly of any consequence qua the veracity of the prosecution case because the story of the abductee that he was taken away from the plot in the Government College, Burewala. It is not his plea that he was called from the class room. A student may be absent from his class but the possibility/probability of his being present in college cannot altogether be ruled out or excluded. It is matter of common observation or experience that students go to college but often miss classes for different reasons.
So the mere absence of the abductee from his class that day would not mean that he was not present in college.
Therefore, the evidence of D. W.1 too is in consequential and it too has rightly been discarded.
36. Here, I want to mention that the learned trial Court has kept the defence plea and the prosecution evidence in juxtaposition to each other. It has properly weighed the same, and after due consideration, it has rejected the former and relied upon the latter.
37. The evidence of P. W.4 and P. W.6 was independent and worth placing reliance. It coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officers and recovery of the car used by the appellant/accused in the commission of crime has led to belief that the appellant has I committed the crime for ransom. The non --recovery of ransom amount is no of adverse effect to the prosecution case as the involvement of the appellant in the abduction of the abductee for ransom stood established. The complainant/P. W.4, however, has explained that he has collected the amount of ransom, from different sources. There is no reason to doubt him in this matter as his anxiety could be well- imagined. He must have arranged money from his available sources for the release of his son.
38. Their evidence thus, appeared to be with intrinsic worth and so reliable and it has rightly been relied upon.
39. The learned trial Court, therefore, has properly read and appreciated the evidence on record of the parties. It has drawn right conclusion from the prosecution evidence. It is according to the principles laid down for appraisal of evidence.
40. No force, thus in the contentions raised on his (appellant) behalf has been found.
41. The appeal is, therefore dismissed being without force.