2017 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.

Through instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24.02.2012, passed by learned Special Judge (STA), Jamshoro @ Kotri, in Sessions Case No.1/2007 emanating from crime No. 06/1997 of Police Station Looni Kot, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for offence punishable under section 365-A, P.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to them.

2. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.06.1997 complainant, her husband Pir Mazhar ul Haq, gumman Ali Asghar and driver Mir Muhammad left Karachi for Hyderabad in their double door Cabin, Toyota Hilux Pickup. The vehicle was being driven by Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq and the complainant was sitting on front seat while driver and gunman were sitting on rear seat. At about 2.30 p.m. when they reached at Kilo meter No.42 from Hyderabad on Super Highway, one Toyota Corolla white coloured Car came behind them and over took their vehicle. The persons sitting in the said Car on the show of weapons gave signal to Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq to stop the vehicle. Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq stopped the same and said armed persons came out from their car and encircled the vehicle of the complainant. Out of them four persons were armed with Kalashnikovs and one with pistol. The accused persons snatched the gun from gunman Ali Asghar and gave butt blow of Kalashnikovs to Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq and forced him to sit on the rear seat. One accused sat with Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq on rear seat Driver Mir Muhammad and gunman Ali Asghar were got seated on Dalla of the Vehicle and one of the culprits drove the vehicle. After drive of 7/8 minutes towards Hyderabad side, the accused stopped the vehicle, got seated driver and gunman in their white corolla Car and proceeded towards Gulshan-e-Shahbaz Hyderabad and stopped the vehicle on back side of Khuda-ki-Basti where they got the complainant, driver Mir Muhammad and gunman Ali Asghar down and took away Pir Mazhar -ul-Haq in the double door Cabin Toyota Hilux Pickup. The complainant party reached at Super Highway by foot, got lift in a vehicle and reached at the bungalow of Qazi Asad Abid and informed him about the incident. Qazi Asad Abid contacted the officers and informed them about the incident, then complainant went to Police Station Looni Kot where she lodged her FIR.

3. The Police after usual investigation submitted challan in the Court of law. The learned trial Court after completing all legal formalities, framed the charge against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. At trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW-1 abductee Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq, PW-2. P.C. Muhammad Rafique, PW-3. SHO Bashir Ahmed, PW-4. SIP/SIO Lutufullah, PW-5. SPO, Muhammad Shari PW-6 Inspector Muhammad Gul Abbass, PW-7. Pir Munawar-ul-Haq, PW-8 Mukhtiarkar Nisar Ahmed, PW-9. SIP/SHO Baharuddin, PW-10. Pir Ghulam Rahmani, PW-11. Haji Khan and PW-12. Mir Muhammad. There after learned DPP closed the side prosecution. Statements of appellants were recorded as required and section 342, Cr.P.C. but they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. The appellants however, neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. 4(sic.) Learned trial Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, learned DPP and appraising the evidence passed impugned judgment, hence they preferred instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment is against the facts and law; that the appellants an innocent and they have falsely been involved in this case; that all the PWs are interested and no independent person has been cited as witness; that some important witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution; that the case against the appellants is identical to that of co-accused Porho who has been acquitted by learned trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs which have not been considered by learned trial Court; that there is unexplained delay of 18 days in holding identification parade; that there is no evidence against the appellants that they abducted Pir Mazhar-ul Haq. They lastly contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, therefore appellants are entitled for acquittal. In support of their contention they relied upon case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), Numan v. Raja Khan and another (2014 PCr.LJ 346), Irshad Ali alias Irshoo and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2006 Karachi 178) and Dhani Bux alias Dhanoo and 2 others v. The State (200 PCr.LJ 239).

6. Conversely, the learned DPG while refuting the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case is based on ocular evidence of abductee and Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq who has no enmity with the appellants, that all the PWs examined before learned trial Court have fully supported the version of prosecution and corroborated the statements of each others on material points; that the appellants have failed to show any enmity/reason for their false implication in the case. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and the judgment passed by learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. He relied upon case of Ghanzafar Ali alias Pappu v. The State (2012 SCMR 215).

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned DPG and examined the record minutely.

8. Perusal of record reveals that the prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case who have fully supported the case. In this case evidence of Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq, the abductee in the case, and Pir Munwar, the person who paid ransom amount to the accused, is important as they are star witnesses of the case. Abductee Pir Mazhar-ul Haq has fully supported his abduction from Super Highway on 12.6.1997, his remaining under illegal confinement of appellants for about 37 days, his letter written to brother PW, Pir Munwar for payment of ransom amount and his release from the captivity of the appellants after payment of ransom amount. Since Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq was in illegal confinement of the appellants for about 37 days, therefore, he had sufficient access to see the accused persons and listen their conversation. It has come in evidence that the abductee was confined in the house of brother of appellant Balio and he, the appellant Balio, was guarding the abductee, he was Hari of appellant Manzoor who also used to bring super. The appellants, co-accused Bahawal Deshak and Rab Dino were identified in identification parade with their specific role in the commission of offence. Case property, i.e., Cash, crime weapons, Pad still Fan and electric switch board were recovered and produced in Court at time of recording evidence, which were identified by abductee. PW Pir Munwar, who paid ransom amount, was examined in Court he fully supported the prosecution case and produced letter written to him by his brother abductee Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq and stated that he paid ransom amount for release of his brother. No doubt some minor contradictions have come on record which do creep due to passage of time but the same can be ignored. In this respect we are fortified by a decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Zulfiqar Ahmed and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 492).

9. Adverting to the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that some important witnesses were not examined by prosecution before the Court. We have examined the evidence of abductee and Pir Mazhar ul-Haq and Pir Munwar which rings true and it is the quality of evidence, and not the quantity, which is to be taken into consideration and conviction can be based even on the testimony of a sole natural and truthful witness. In this respect reference can be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Asif Hussain v. The State (2005 MLD 1911) in which it has been held that: "It is equally well-settled that conviction in a criminal case can be recorded on the strength of a single eye-witness's testimony if it inspires confidence. Particularly in cases of kidnapping and abduction, it is well-settled that unless there are strong reasons to discredit the testimony of the kidnapee, he is to be believed".

10. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that neither the appellants abducted the abductee nor they received ransom amount, therefore, they cannot be convicted for offence under section 365-A, Cr.P.C. As per prosecution version the appellants were guarding the abductee and were providing food for 37 days, therefore, they are equally responsible. In this respect we are fortified by a precedent of honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Talha Hussain v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 115) in which it has been observed that: "The law is that if a person subsequently associates himself with the accused in the crime he may have same liability and learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that Ahmed Hussain petitioner was not privy to the crime".

11. As regards delay in holding identification parade. It is matter of record that the appellant Manzoor was arrested on 27.8.1997 and Balio was arrested on 29.8.1997 and the identification parade was arranged without any delay on 30.8.1997, therefore, there appears no delay in holding identification parade. As far as the acquittal of co-accused Porho is concerned his case was on different footings, there was no evidence at all against him, hence no objection was given by the prosecution as well as complainant, therefore, his acquittal would not entitle the appellants for same relief.

12. From the meticulous examination of record we are satisfied that the trial Court had appreciated the evidence in accordance with law. There is sufficient evidence against the appellants to connect them with the commission of offence. Appellants were identified in identification parade as well as in Court. Despite lengthy cross examination the evidence of PWs has not been shattered by the defence counsel. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case.

13. For what has been discussed above we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge, (STA) Jamshoro at Kotri, Camp at Central Prison Hyderabad, does not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, the appeal in hand being devoid of merits was dismissed by short our order dated 14.11.2016 for the reasons mentioned above. WA/M-181/Sindh Appeal dismissed.