2006 PLP 1467 (YLR)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal against respondent No. 1 in F.I.R. No.274 of 2004 dated 2-7-2004, under section 364-A, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha under section 417(2A), Cr.P.C. The appellant has challenged order, dated 26-4-2005 passed by Syed Pervez Ali, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby he acquitted respondent No.

1. The allegation against the respondent No.1 was that he kidnapped Masoom Ali, a minor aged 4 years. The minor was nephew of the complainant and the appellant. As alleged the respondent No.1 kidnapped him for committing murder but was arrested red-handed at the spot.

2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Judge misread, misjudged and misconstrued the evidence of the prosecution and failed to apply judicial mind in total ignorance of evidence.

3. The respondent No.1 stated in his stated under section 342, Cr.P.C. that he was going to offer his prayers while children were playing outside in the garden. A dirty ball hit him and dirt of the ball splashed on his clothes whereupon he shouted at the children. The complainant along with P.Ws. grappled and scuffled with him and also gave him beating. According to the respondent No.1, the above occurrence led to the registration of the case instant. P.W. Sikandar Hayat, complainant lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.A. He deposed that he along with P.Ws. Azam and Islam were sitting in the lawn of the complainant's house. Masoom Ali, nephew aged 4 years was playing in front of the house. He heard the notice of weeping of the abductee. When they came out, they saw accused/respondent No.1 was running and had kidnapped Masoom Ali. The P.Ws. ran after the accused and overpowered him and rescued Masoom Ali from him. The learned trial Court noted that not a single word was recorded in the F.I.R. as to why nephew of the complainant was abducted. However, in supplementary statement dated 20-10-2004, the complainant asserted that accused had intention to kill the abductee. The supplementary statement was recorded after lapse of 3-1/2 months of the alleged occurrence. According to the learned trial Court, the said statement created a doubt in the story of the prosecution. In view of the above doubt, the version of the respondent No.1 was believed by the learned trial Court and while giving benefit of doubt, the respondent No.1 was acquitted. The reasons given by the learned trial Court discussed above, are convincing, therefore, this appeal is dismissed, in limine. H.B.T./S-36/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.