1972 PLP 642 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner in this case was tried along with two others. He and Niamat Khan were charged under section 363, P. P. C. and one Mir Hawas Din alias Burmullah was charged with abetment under section 363/109, P. P. C. for the kidnapping of an infant daughter of one Hassan Khan at about 9 a.m. of the 9th of December 1968, from outside her house in Mohallah Sheikh Saleem Bannu City. Hassan Khan lodged information about the disappearance of his child on the next day at Bannu Police Station. The peti tioner and Niamat Khan were arrested on the 21st of December 1968, but Mir Hawas Din could not be apprehended until the 16th of September 1969. Niamat Khan made a detailed confessional statement two days after his arrest and stuck to this even at the trial. The main evidence against the petitioner was the confessional statement of co‑accused Niamat Khan. This obviously could only be utilised against the other accused if it was corroborated in material particulars. This corroboration was found to have been furnished by the oral testimonies of several witnesses. Mustafa Kama] and Mohabat Khan gave evidence to the effect that the present petitioner had actually approached Mustafa Kamal, while he was present in the shop of Mohabat Khan along with his servant Amaldin, and offered to recover the kidnapped girl on payment of Rs.6,000 by way of ransom. Another piece of corroboration was furnished by Muhammad Rafiq who actually paid Rs.100 to Mir Hawas Din for producing some token indicating that the girl was with him and was alive, and on such payment, the accused Niamat Khan produced before Muhammad Rafiq, at the latter's house, two taweez wrapped in a cloth which were later identified as those which were round the neck of the child at the time of her disappearance. Other portions of the confessional statement were corro borated by Hassan Khan, Sheikh Abdur Rahim, and Amaldin, the servant of Mustafa Kamal. In view of this corroboration, which was also found to be free from material inconsistencies, the trial Court convicted all the three and sentenced each of them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months each. The present petitioner and Niamat Khan were also awarded fifteen stripes each under the West Pakistan Whipping (Amendment) Ordinance, 1963. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal of Mir Hawas Din and acquitted him but maintained the convictions of the present petitioner and Niamat Khan. Dalai alone has come up for leave to appeal to this Court, and it has been contended on his behalf that his conviction has been wrongly maintained solely on the basis of the uncorro borated confessional statement of co-accused Niamat Khan without giving due weight to the defence evidence adduced fn the case or to the fact that the kidnapped child was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the corroborating evidence, even if believed, only implicated him in the demand for the ransom and not In the kidnapping itself. We see no substance in any one of these contentions. The confessional statement fully implicated the present petitioner and the confessing accused and this was substantially corroborated in material particulars, both as regards the incident as well as the participation of the petitioner in the incident. It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence should, by itself, be sufficient to warrant a conviction. All that is required is that the corroborating evidence should be such as to confirm the statement of the co‑accused implicating the other accused This has been amply done in the present case, and the High Court was, in our view, right in taking the view that the confessional statement of the co‑accused was abundantly corroborated with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the offence of kidnapping. The defence evidence has been fully considered both by the trial Court and the High Court and disbelieved. It was of a vague and unconvincing nature. It cannot, therefore, be said that the defence evidence was ignored. We see no reason to interfere and accordingly dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed