SULTAN MUHAMMAD alias BACHA KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges an order of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing the appellant's jail appeal against his conviction under section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the appellant's acts constituted merely an attempt at kidnapping rather than a completed offense, given that the intervention of locals rendered the final outcome abortive. The Supreme Court held that the offense of kidnapping was completed when the appellant seized the child and placed him in a rickshaw, and that statutory provisions regarding attempts and illustrations thereunder demonstrate that an offense is completed even if its ultimate object is frustrated by external circumstances. The court affirmed the conviction, dismissing the appeal while extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner.
- Does an offense constitute merely an attempt when the criminal act is rendered abortive by external intervention?
- How is the term attempt construed under the Pakistan Penal Code when a specific statutory definition and illustrations are provided?
- Whether seizing a child and placing him in a conveyance constitutes a completed offense under section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- This criminal appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 14- 12-1999 of the learned High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby Criminal Jail Appeal No,170 of 1999 filed by appellant Sultan Muhammad alias Bacha khan was dismissed.
2. Molvi Asmatullah lodged F.I.R. No,30 of 1998 under section 364-A, P.P.C. Before Police Station Pashtoonabad that on hearing hue and cry, he went out of his house where appellant Sultan was apprehended and Haji Ghafoor and one shopkeeper Muhammad Anwar told him that the neighbours apprehended the ,accused after putting cloth on the complainant's son Bilal for the purpose to kidnap the boy. The appellant had put him in a Rakshaw and he also snatched a child from a girl. The Rakshaw driver on realizing the situation and the reason of crying of girl from whom the child was snatched by the appellant raised hue and cry. People gathered at the spot and from the possession of the appellant sweets and one packet containing syrup (Sharbat) was also recovered and thrown away. On receipt of information police reached at the spot followed by conviction on proof of charge under section 364-A, P.P.C. And upheld in appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner placed reliance on the dictionary meaning of word "attempt" to show that the offence had been committed constituted only an attempt as the kidnapping was rendered abortive, therefore, the appellant is not liable to be convicted for the offence under section 364-A, P. P. C .
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the dictionary meaning of the word "attempt" would not be relevant as specific definition is provided for the word "attempt" by the statute itself then it is to be applied to the case. The word attempt constitutes offences under section 511, P.P.C. Which reads as follows:-- "511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with [imprisonment for life] on a shorter terms. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, the punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence,] or with such fine [Daman] as is provided for the offence, or with both.
' Illustrations
(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under, this section.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section."
On examining the above section in the light of the illustration above, it is clear that attempt covers only those cases where for some reasons the object of the offence is not accomplished. In the instant case, the offence was completed when the appellant had kidnapped the son of Molvi Asmatullah by putting the child in Rakshaw after putting Pattu (bag). The child was already wrapped in the cloth. Rakshaw driver raised hue and cry on realizing the situation, therefore, the appellant was caught red handed after commission of offence under section 364-A, P.P.C. For which he was tried followed by this conviction based on sound evidence discussed in detail proved the charge and the same does not constitute an attempt only. We do not find any merit in the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Accordingly this appeal, as no ground is made out, is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended to the petitioner.