NUMAN vs RAJA KHAN and another
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The prosecution case arose from the alleged abduction of the complainant's son for ransom, leading to the appellant's trial following the acquittal of co-accused individuals. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be lawfully convicted on the same evidence that resulted in co-accused acquittals, absent any corroborative incriminating material, recovery, or identification. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable as no incriminating evidence connected the appellant to the crime, the abductee was never recovered or produced, no identification parade was held, and the complainant had compounded the matter. The court laid down the principle that mere allegations in an F.I.R. without supportive evidence or recovered corpus, coupled with the unchallenged acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and a full acquittal.
- Can an accused be convicted on uncorroborated allegations when co-accused facing the same evidence have already been acquitted?
- Whether the failure to recover the abductee or establish receipt of ransom vitiates a conviction under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the compounding of an offence by the complainant warrant the acquittal of the appellant in the circumstances of the case?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 7(e), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Appellant Numan through this appeal has questioned his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Peshawar, vide impugned judgment dated 10-7-2013, whereby he was convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C.
And sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
2. Brief and essential facts of the prosecution case are that Raja Khan complainant lodged a report that he received information about abduction of his son namely Sadam, by unknown person. He launched search for his son and after lapse of ten days and on payment of Rs,6,20,000 to the abductors, his son was released. Thereafter he charged Numan (appellant) Jehangir Khan and Muhammad Ibrahim (acquitted accused) for ransom and abduction of his son.
3. In the earlier round of trial of the co-accused, Jehangir and Ibrahim were acquitted by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court whereas on arrest of the present appellant his trial was conducted and through the impugned judgment dated 10-7-2013 he was convicted and sentenced as narrated above.
4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that on the basis of same evidence, co-accused Jehangir and Ibrahim were acquitted by the learned trial Court whereas the appellant was convicted and sentenced, which is not only discriminatory act of the learned trial Court but also against the principle of natural justice. He further contended that except bare allegation in the F.I.R., nothing incriminating was available on file to connect the appellant with the commission of crime; that neither the alleged abductee had been recovered from the custody of the appellant nor any statement was recorded by the abductee or any other independent person to connect the appellant with the offence charged with. At the last leg of his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the complainant who is present in Court along with his counsel, is not interested to prosecute the appellant and had already patched up the matter, which by itself is sufficient to discharge the appellant from the commission of offence.
5.
6. #TBS
7. PCr.L,1
8. #TBE
9. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that the complainant is no more interested to prosecute the appellant. He further submitted that the complainant has patched up the matter with all the accused and on the basis of the same two accused namely Ibrahim and Jehangir have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. From the perusal of record it is evident that co-accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the same evidence. The only evidence available was in the shape of confession by the acquitted accused Ibrahim. The acquittal of the co-accused had not been challenged either by the complainant party or by the State. The alleged abductee never appeared before the Court for recording his statement nor has any identification parade been held after arrest of the appellant, so as to connect him with the commission of crime. Nothing incriminating material was available on the file to connect the appellant except the bare allegation in the F.I.R. Neither the alleged abductee has been recovered from the custody of the appellant, nor the ransom amount was established to have been passed to the appellant. Mere assertion of the complainant that the appellant had a hand in the affairs, without positive attempt, on his part to substantiate the same, was of no consequence. The complainant had made a volunteer statement that he has compounded the offence with the appellant in order to maintain cordial relation between them. No case of abduction or kidnapping was made out and ingredients of offence punishable under section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the case.
12. In view of the above discussion, while extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, he has been found entitled to earn acquittal.
Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Numan recorded by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Peshawar vide impugned judgment dated 10-7-2013 is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' These are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.
Cited by 1 case
- MANZOOR ZARDARI Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 81