JAVED KHAN vs THE STATE

' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--Appellant Javed is charged under sections 419/420/364/365, P.P.C.

Vide F.I.R. No,276 dated 30-8-2006 registered at Police Station Ghoriwala, Bannu. After the commencement of trial and recording of evidence, Mr. Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu vide judgment dated 22-10-2007 in Sessions case No,161 of 2006 found the appellant guilty and resultantly sentenced him under section 419, P.P.C. To there years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,8000 or in default of payment of fine, to three months S.I, under section 420, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. With ,a fine of Rs,8000 or in default of payment of fine, to suffer there months' S.I. Under section 365, P.P.C. To four years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further S.I. For three months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to the appellant.

2. Mr. Farooq Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State was asked to assist this Court on factual aspect of the case, who submitted that initially three accused were charged for the commission of the offence and out of them, two namely Muhammad Ashraf and Hussain Ali were acquitted while on the same set of evidence, the appellant was convicted as referred to above.

Further submitted that although the accused were involved in so many occurrence and in the last occurrence they kidnapped Mir Habib Shah who remained in their unlawful custody for a sufficient long time. The abductee somehow escaped from the clutches of the appellant and he got his statement recorded under section recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which he charged three persons in the commission of the offence. The statement of the complainant was the basis for registration of the case and consequently the instant case was registered. During investigation under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The father of Hussain Ali namely Amir Muhammad son of Gul Muhammad also joined the investigation and his statement was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.

The allegation of father of Hussain Ali was that his son was abducted by Javed and kept in unlawful confinement. There is abundant evidence on record that Javed appellant was involved in hypnotism and playing magic and had rented a house at Bhakkar where on discovery the police recovered the books and other related articles used for hypnotism/magic and in this way the prosecution has led cogent and convicing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Further submits that on the pointation of the abductee all the three accused were arrested and consequently challaned to the Court. That Amir Muhammad, father of Hussain Ali had also reported the matter which was reduced into writing vide daily diary No,5 dated 22-7-2008 at Police Station Khawazakhela, District Swat regarding missing of his son. Regarding missing of Ashraf co- accused, report of his abduction had also been lodged in Police Station Civil Lines Gujranwala which was reduced into writing in the shape of F.I.R. No,113 dated 12-2-2006 under section 365, P.P.C.

Further submitted that when the matter came to lime light, the learned trial Court held that the two acquitted accused were subject to hypnotism and were under the direct control of appellant Javed. It was lastly submitted that the prosecution has led overwhelming evidence on record to prove that Javed, the present appellant, was involved in the commission of the offence. That P.Ws.

Were subject to lengthy cross- examination but nothing was squeezed out from their mouths who were consistent in their statements, which could not be shattered in cross-examination. On the question of quantum of sentence, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has already dealt with the appellant leniently and he deserves no reduction in sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Javed appellant was involved in playing magic on the people and the magic instruments along with books were recovered from the prosecution of the appellant.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

5. The prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is coherent, consistent and the same has not been shattered in cross-examination. There is also corroborative evidence on record to establish the guilt of the convict-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. Regarding the quantum of sentence, the learned trial Court had already taken a lenient view and has awarded a meagre sentence, which needs no reduction.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in this criminal appeal which is dismissed.