2021 PLP 162 (SCMR)

SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.

Through this petition the petitioner Fawad Khan, impugns the judgment dated 19.1.2017 whereby his appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) was dismissed.

2. Precise facts of the case are that the petitioner was indicted in case FIR No.634 registered on 3.7.2015 at Police Station Tehkal Peshawar under section 365-A, P.P.C. After a full-fledged trial the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under section 365-A, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 19.04.2016 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel, learned State counsel, perused the available record and observed that regarding the abduction of the abductee Manochur. Firstly the matter was reported to the police on 21-05.2015 and when ransom amount was demanded through different Sims registered in Afghanistan, ultimately the FIR was chalked out on 3.7.2015. The demand of ransom by un-known person was mentioned in the FIR and the abductee remained in captivity for about 43 days and lastly he was recovered from the basement of the house/cattle shade of the petitioner where the petitioner was guarding him while armed with pistol and the raiding party found the abductee in the basement while chained and locked. The lock was broken and the abductee was got free. The abductee while making statement categorically stated that it was the petitioner who remained at guard upon him in the said house. It is also asserted in the statement that during his captivity he was threatened that if deal was not settled he (the abductee) will be killed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ransom amount was not paid and there is nothing on record in the shape of CDR to prove the demand but the complainant while lodging the FIR and making statement in the Court, categorically stated that ransom amount was demanded. Whether ransom was paid or not is immaterial because the Court has to see the purpose behind the abduction which is obvious in this case. The petitioner was apprehended red-handed and the abductee was recovered from his exclusive possession. It was never a case of the petitioner during the cross-examination that the house from where the abductee was recovered was not owned by him whereas all the witnesses who participated in the raid categorically stated that it was the house of the petitioner where he was guarding upon the abductee. It is also a circumstance that during cross-examination not a single word regarding any enmity with the complainant or the abductee was suggested by the defence side. There is no occasion for them to make a false statement against the petitioner especially when the abductee remained in captivity four about 43 days while chained and locked.

4. Both the Courts below have rightly appraised and re appraised the entire evidence and there is nothing on record to indicate any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence. Both the Courts below concurred with each other regarding the guilt of the petitioner and we, on our own independent evaluation of evidence, are not able to differ with the said conclusion. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. Criminal Petition No.99/2017

5. Through this petition the petition has impugned the judgment whereby conviction of the petitioner under section 15 of the KPK Arms Act, 2013 to undergo R.I. for three years and further conviction and sentence of 5 years' R.I. under section 7(2)(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. awarded by the trial Court, was maintained.

6. It is a circumstance that during the raid for recovery of abductee Manochur, the petitioner was apprehended on the spot while guarding the abductee who was tied in chain in the basement of the said house. The raiding party on searching of the petitioner also got recovered from his exclusive possession a .30 bore pistol with 12 live rounds. The pistol was without number and he was unable to show license of the same. The petitioner was also charged for an offence under section 15AA of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. Accordingly expert opinion of the Armourer regarding the incriminating article was obtained which reflected that the said weapon was in working order.

7. We have perused the record and observed that the prosecution has proved its case through reliable and truthful witnesses of the recovery of pistol, corroborated by the documentary evidence in the shape of recovery memo, the statement of Armourer regarding working condition of the pistol. The pistol was without number and even the petitioner remained failed to produce its licence throughout. We, on our own independent, evaluation of the evidence, are not able to differ with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court regarding the guilt of the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is also dismissed and leave refused. MWA/F-19/SC Petitions dismissed.