Present: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ (PLP)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby respondent No. l was acquitted of offences under sections 365‑A and 302, P.P.C.

2. The petitioner (complainant) lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Tando Adam alleging that he is a resident at Tando Adam and has a Kariana shop. About 28 or 29 days back he along with his son Ali Dino alias Babu and his relatives Habib Khan and Abdul Hakim was sitting in his shop when his nephew Anwar accompanied by Akko Hajano, Aziz Thahim, Allah Dino and Allah Bakhsh came to his shop and asked Ali Dino to accompany them to Melia of Juman Jati. At about 8‑00 p.m. the complainant asked his nephew Anwar, respondent No. 1 to return early from the Melia. Thereafter all of them proceeded to the Melia. Next morning the complainant noticed that his son had not returned and on query from respondent. No. 1 he was told that Babu was coming separately as he had separated from him during the night. The petitioner searched in vain and got published a news in Daily `Kawash'. About seven or eight days before lodging the F.I.R. when he went to his shop in the morning, he found one chit in which it was written that his son had been abducted by dacoit Sohrab Chandio and a demand for ransom was made. On 12/13‑3‑1992 he saw respondent No. 1 putting something in the shop. He caught hold of him and from his possession recovered one letter wrapped in a piece of cloth containing a note of demand for ransom by Sohrab Chandio. The cloth used for wrapping the chit was identified by him to be a piece of the Shalwar of his son. Thereafter as had and his relatives were unable to extract any information from him, he lodged the report against respondent No.l and other persons who had accompanied his son to the Melia alleging that they had kidnapped his son and concealed him somewhere. Respondent No. l was taken to the police station along with two letters which were produced before the police by the petitioner. During interrogation respondent No. 1 volunteered to show them the dead body of the deceased Ali Dino son of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 led the police party to a private quarter in the railways area of Tando Adam which had been rented by him and pointed out that the dead body was buried there in a room of the quarter. One spade was found lying in the room. Respondent No. 1 dug out the earth from where the dead body of Ali Dino was secured and necessary formalities were completed. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 13‑3‑1992 and he made a confession on 28‑3‑1992. The learned trial Court convicted respondent No. 1 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under section 365‑A, P.P.C. and confiscation of all his movable and immovable properties. Under section 302, P.P.C. he was also sentenced to imprisonment for life Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court, which was allowed and he was acquitted by the impugned judgment.

3. Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judges have not considered the evidence properly and have misappreciated the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel the confession was voluntary and in accordance with law. It was further contended that recovery of chits wrapped in cloth torn from the Shalwar of the deceased coupled with the fact that the deceased was last seen with respondent No.l and further that respondent No. 1 had led to the recovery of the dead body of Ali Dino from a room of his quarter were sufficient to convict him. The learned A counsel also contended that the fact that key of the quarter was not proved to have been recovered from respondent No.l will not falsify the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the circumstantial evidence brought on record. We grant leave to reappraise the evidence for proper and safe administration of criminal justice. Bailable warrant be issued against respondent No. 1 in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount. M.BA./A‑1144/S Leave granted