2012 PLP 538 (SCMR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

On the basis of an allegation regarding abduction for ransom of one Siraj Khan the present appellant namely Faiz-ur-Rehman was booked in case F.I.R. No.112 registered at Police Station Lund Khwar, District Mardan on 20-2-1999 for an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. After holding a full-dressed trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan at Takht Bhai convicted the appellant for an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 20-3-2000 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years. The benefit under section 382- B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Jail Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2001 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the said Court vide judgment dated 17-4-2003. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 15-7-2009.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

3. The F.I.R. lodged in this case itself shows that the appellant was not known to Taj Muhammad complainant (P.W.3) and the alleged abductee namely Siraj Khan (P.W.4) and the appellant's name had been disclosed to them by one Muhammad Saleem who had subsequently been implicated in this case as a co-accused of the appellant but he was later on acquitted by the learned trial court. The said Muhammad Saleem co-accused had not confirmed the assertion of Taj Muhammad complainant (P.W.3) and Siraj Khan (P.W.4) regarding disclosure of the appellant's name by him to them. It is not denied that no test identification parade had been held in this case so as to positively incriminate the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the alleged abductee had not been recovered from the appellant's custody and also that the alleged abductee had surfaced on his own and had appeared before the police on his own volition. The record of this case further shows that no ransom had been paid by the complainant or the alleged abductee or by anybody else to the appellant or any other person. The record further shows that the taxi-car wherein the alleged abductee had statedly been abducted by the appellant had never been recovered from the appellant's possession. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar shows that the learned Division Bench of that Court had misread the record in observing that "the appellant was identified by the abductee in the trial Court who by then had shaved his beard" We have gone through the statement made by the alleged abductee namely Siraj Khan (P.W.4) before the learned trial Court and have found that during the making of that statement he had never pointed towards the appellant to be the person who had abducted him or had demanded ransom for his release. In the absence of any other evidence on the record establishing the appellant's involvement in the alleged offence we have no other option but to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in filing of this appeal is, therefore, condoned, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded and upheld by the learned courts below are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. M.H./F-1/SC Appeal allowed.