GHULAM HUSAIN SOOMRO vs THE STATE

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 3-6-2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court upholding his conviction for an offence under section 6(2)

(e) read with section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 365-A/34, P.P.C. For kidnapping Abdul Samad, P.W.2 a student of matriculation on or about 24-8-2003 at about 10-30 a.m.

2. Precise facts leading to this petition appear to be that the petitioner was on friendly terms with Muhammad Hanif-father of the captive and he used to frequently visit him in connection with certain business relations. On the fateful day, he went to the house of Muhammad Hanif and called him through intercom. His wife informed him that the latter was not available at home. He left and returned after about 15 minutes. He again called Muhammad Hanif on intercom and on being told that he was still away from the house, he sent for his son on the pretext that he had to deliver certain important papers for his father.

' The captive, who was fast asleep being Sunday, was awakened by his mother and sent outside, when he was forcibly pushed into the car of the petitioner with the active assistance of co-accused Muhammad Akbar. He was driven to a place and confined in a dark room and chained with bars and fetters. As Abdul Samad did not return home, his mother got suspicious and sent her other son namely Abdul Qadir P.W.3, who found the kidnapee being driven away by the petitioner. He informed his mother and also reported incident to police. On arrival of Muhammad Hanif, latter visited Police. Station and hectic efforts were made for locating the kidnapee, who was recovered with active police assistance on 28-8-2003 at the potation of the petitioner F.I.R. Of the incident was, however, lodged on 25-8-2003 at 5-15 p.m.

3. During the course of investigation co-accused-Muhammad Akbar as well as Imran Yousuf were also taken into custody. The chains and the cloth used at the time of confinement of the captive were also recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused. On completion of investigation, he was sent up for trial along with co--accused Muhammad Akbar and Imran Yousaf. Trial of the petitioner and other culminated in conviction of the petitioner and that of Muhammad Akbar while Imran Yousaf was acquitted on extension of the benefit of doubt. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of his movable and immovable properties to the extent of Rs,1,00,000. Petitioner as well as Muhammad Akbar appealed before a Division Bench of the High Court, which, after hearing on a good number of dates, has been dismissed vide judgment impugned in this petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and, with his assistance, gone through the record, more particularly, the evidence of Abdul Samad, P.W. 2 and Abdul Qadir P.W.3 as well as other witnesses corroborating the prosecution case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the F.I.R. Was belated by 36 hours; that the trial Court and the High Court committed serious error of law by misreading the evidence on the question of recovery of the kidnapped person from the possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of business relations between him and the father of the captive.

6. We have anxiously attended to the submissions of the learned counsel and found from the record that the delay in lodging F.I.R. Has been adequately explained and accounted for. In any event, mere delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Is not always fatal to the prosecution case, though in some cases it might militate against the bona fides of the prosecution. In the cases involving kidnapping of young ones tor extorting huge ransom, parents as well as the investigating police invariably endeavor their best to locate the victim rather than promptly lodging F.I.R. For fear of death of victim, which may sometimes prove to be counterproductive. We are, therefore, not inclined to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution on the ground of delay alone in lodging the F.I.R.

7. Adverting to the question of misreading of evidence, from the evidence of Abdul Samad P.W.2 and Abdul Qadir P.W.3 as well as Investigating Officer-Tassawar Hameed, we are convinced that the petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the crime attributed to him and the recovery of the captive took place at his pointation from his possession. There is no room for doubt that the petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the offence alleged against him and the trial Court as well as the High Court did not suffer from misreading of record or misconstruction of evidence, as contended by the learned counsel.

8. Before parting with this judgment, it may be pertinent to observe that the crimes like kidnapping for ransom have become rampant in our society, which is an unfortunate state of affairs and can only be deprecated. Such kind of criminal acts must be dealt with iron hands and event if there are minor discrepancies and deviations in the evidence or shortfalls on the part of investigating agency, the Courts should always be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching the true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case. We may not be misunderstood to mean that an innocent person wrongly roped by prosecution or falsely involved by an unscrupulous investigating officers should be unreasonably dealt with or made escape goat but he Courts must maintain balance while arriving at the truth or falsehood of the matter by sifting the grain from the chaff. This may be treated as a rule of caution and circumspection.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no ground for grant of leave to appeal in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed.