2010 PLP 2001 (YLR)

SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.--Through this criminal appeal, filed under section 410, read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. against judgment, dated 17-12-2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot has been impugned whereby appellant Darwesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 364-A, P.P.C. and as such, he has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for seven years. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. This appeal has mainly been assailed on the ground that P.Ws. namely, Yar Muhammad and Shabir Ahmed have not implicated the appellant and as such, they were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has much stressed that the trial Court had discarded the defence and did not appreciate the evidence produced on record. According to him, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record does not warrant conviction and that the accused/appellant has falsely been involved in this case. His contention is that the appellant/accused may be acquitted from this case. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Ali v. State reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 774.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has fully supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. She argued that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported its case and as such, appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.

4. Perusal of the case papers shows that appellant Darwesh was charged for having kidnapped baby Naheed daughter of the complainant aged about 5/6 years while putting her in a Plastic Bag (Bachka) and as such, he was apprehended by the complainant and P.Ws. Shabir Ahmed and Ghulam Abbas and others Muhalla people at the distance of 10/12 paces. His associate, who was unidentified, made his escape good from the spot. In support of its case, prosecution has examined complainant Liaquat Ali, the father of abductee girl and he has stated the facts as narrated by him in the F.I.R. which has been exhibited as Exh.4-A. He was cross-examined and no suggestion was made to him to the effect that the accused present in the Court was not the sane who was apprehended at the spot. Such type of suggestion made from the complainant shows that the culprit was apprehended at the spot who was kidnapping minor girl Naheed, from the street. No suggestion whatsoever was made to the complainant as to why present accused was involved in this case and on what account. In his statement, appellant Darwesh has not stated specifically as to why he has been involved in this case falsely. He neither deposed on oath nor led any evidence in defence. Statement of P.W.2 Shabir Ahmed is to the effect that on 16-4-2008 at 9-00 a.m. he and some other people apprehended accused Darwesh from the street as there was commotion to the effect that accused was abducting Naheed, minor daughter of complainant Liaquat Ali. Of course, he has deposed that he did not see the accused while taking away Baby Naheed but all the same his statement is to the effect that present appellant/accused was apprehended at the spot by Muhalla People, he was one of amongst them who had captured the culprit. Statement of P.W.3 Ghulam Abbas is also to the extent that police had arrested accused Darwesh from the place of wardat. Fourth witness is Aftab Ahmed, who had acted as Mashir and as such, Mashirnamas of arrest and place of wardat have been produced by him. He had supported the prosecution case. He was cross-examined by prosecution after declaring hint hostile. Fifth witness is Mughal Khan who did not give evidence properly on the first date of hearing i.e. 4-9-2008 however, he was recalled and re-affirmed on 16-9-2008 when he was examined. He had arrested the accused under Mashirnama and recovered the Bachka which Mashirnamas have been exhibited on record. Sixth witness A.S.-I. Muhammad Hassan investigated the matter and as such, he has narrated all the facts of investigation conducted by him and as such, fully supported the prosecution case. He was cross-examined but of no avail to the defence of the appellant. Seventh witness PC Illahi Bux has also fully supported the prosecution case.

5. In view of above ample evidence exhibited on record, it is a proved case beyond any shadow of doubt whereby baby Naheed daughter of complainant aged about 5/6 years was being kidnapped by putting her in a bag (Bachka) and as such, appellant/accused was apprehended by the complainant and P.Ws. with the help of Muhalla people and as such case of 364-A, P.P.C. was made out against him. Perusal of impugned judgment does not show that there was any misreading of evidence and that the same was mis-appreciated by the trial Court. Had it been so, that the appellant/accused was falsely involved in this case for either of the reason, such suggestion could have been made to each and every witness coupled with the fact that the accused/appellant could have said so, specifically while his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. was being recorded. Even, he declined to depose on oath. All this shows that he was the actual culprit and had committed such an offence. The grounds taken in this appeal are without any substance. This appeal merits no consideration and as such, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./D-8/K Appeal dismissed.