MANTAZUDDIN Alias MANTAJ MEA vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement a kidnapped person. The petitioner was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court of East Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in law by inferring the petitioner's knowledge of the boy's kidnapped status based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the petitioner's failure to report the boy's presence despite suspicious circumstances, the boy's dialect, and the petitioner's restrictions on the boy's movement. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court were sufficient to support the inference of knowledge and constituted conduct wholly incompatible with innocence. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the appreciation of evidence by lower courts, as that function falls outside its scope. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that circumstantial evidence regarding an accused's conduct can sufficiently prove the requisite knowledge for a conviction under Section 368.
- Can circumstantial evidence regarding an accused's conduct be sufficient to prove knowledge that a person was kidnapped?
- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan interfere with the appreciation of evidence by lower courts in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is the failure to report the presence of a suspicious individual to authorities a factor in establishing guilty knowledge under Section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 368, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner was convicted under section 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years by the Assistant Ses--sions Judge, Noakhali. His conviction and sentence have been upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan, on appeal. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. The allegation against him is that he kept a boy of about 12 years, called Millat, confined in his house for a period of about a month and a half knowing that the said boy had been kidnapped by some other person from the lawful guardianship of his own parents.
3. The boy, who was missing from the house of his father from the 4th or 5th of April 1964, was, in fact, recovered from the house of the petitioner on 18th of July 1964. The defence set up on behalf of the petitioner does not challenge, that the boy had been abducted by a person referred to as "Babriwala", confined by him in his house for a month, thereafter confined for another month and a half in the house of Idris Mian and then for 4/5 days in the house of one, Ataur Rahman, who in his turn brought him to the house of the petitioner and left him there. It is contended, however, on behalf of the petitioner that he did not know that the boy had been abducted from his parents. The boy has, of course, stated that he was confined by the petitioner against his will, but he admitted that Ataur Rahman introduced him to the petitioner as his brother's motherless son.
4. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the fact that the boy had actually admitted in the Committing Court that the petitioner had asked him about his whereabouts, although he denied the same in the trial Court. The Committing Court evidence put in under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that such enquiry about the whereabouts of the boy was made on several occasions.
5. The High Court has, however, inferred that the petitioner knew that the boy had been abducted from lawful custody by someone from the following circumstances :-
(1) Immediately on his recovery the boy gave out the whole story of his abduction and confinement in different places, including the house of the petitioner.
(2) The petitioner himself suspected the statement of Ataur Rahman about the relationship of the boy with him, yet never questioned Ataur Rahman about it in detail, although Ataur Rahman visited his house several times even afterwards.
(3) The petitioner knew that the boy spoke in the Noakhali dialect, although Ataur Rahman belonged to Sylhet districts and spoke in the Sylhet dialect.
(4) The petitioner did not allow the boy to go out of the house unaccompanied.
(5) Nevertheless the petitioner never informed either the local Chairman of the Union Council or the local police about the presence of the boy in his house under circumstances which even to the petitioner appeared to be suspicious.
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner con--tends that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court were not incomptible with the innocence of the petitioner and, there--fore, the High Court was wrong in law in drawing the inference that the petitioner must have known that the boy was kidnapped.
7. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. The circumstances enumerated above were, in our view, quite sufficient to lead to such inference and they constituted con-1 duct wholly incompatible with the conduct of an innocent person. No error of law has, therefore, been committed by the High Court.
8. All other questions raised relate purely to the appreciation of evidence which is not a function undertaken by this Court. There is thus, in our opinion, no ground for interference in this matter. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.