MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE

SH: IJAZ NISAR, J.---Javed Mawaz, his wife Neelam Mawaz, (3) Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini, (4) Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi, (5) Athar Hussain alias Goji, (6) Naeem Haider, (7) Kamran Saleem, (8) Muhammad Hassan, (9) Manzur Hussain, (10) Tariq Masud, and (11) Azhar Hussain were tried by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Shami, Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Lahore under section 365-A, P.P.C. for having abducted Sh. Aftab Ahmed, a leading businessman of Lahore, from Liberty Garden, Lahore on 22-4-1990 tat 6-30 a.m. for ransom. By judgment, dated 22-11-1990 Javed Mawaz - and Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini were convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life each and confiscation of all their properties. Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi, Athar Hussain alias Goji, Naeem Haider and Kamran Saleem, who were tried in absentia, were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and confiscation of all their properties. Muhammad Hassan and Manzur Hussain who were also tried in absentia, were awarded 7 years' R.I. each under section 365-A, P.P.C. Neelam Mawaz wife of Javed Mawaz was convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I Tariq Masud and Azhar Hussain were, however, acquitted.

2. Challenging their conviction and sentences, Javed Mawaz has filed Criminal Appeal No.861/90 Neelam Mawaz has filed Criminal Appeal No.882/90, Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini has filed Criminal Appeal No.834/90, Muhammad Hassan and Manzoor Hussain have filed Criminal Appeal No.860/90, Mazhar Hussain, Athar Hussain and Naeem Haider have filed Criminal Appeal No.972/90 and Kamran Saleem has filed Criminal Appeal No.658/91. All the appeals shall be disposed of by this judgment.

3. The prosecution case is that on 22-4-1990 Sh. Aftab Ahmed, Chairman Sunshine Group of Industries P.W. 8 (hearinafter called the abductee) went to \Liberty Park for his routine morning walk. When he did not return for a 4onsiderable -time, Muhammad Rafiq, Director (Finance), Sunshine Group of Industries P.W.1, accompanied by other employees of the Company, went to the liberty Park and found the car of Sh. Aftab Ahmed in an abandoned condition r r Pixi Junior School. They searched for the abductee here and there but on f 'ling to find any clue of him, reported the matter at Police Station Gulberg, ore vide statement Exh.PJ recorded at about 11-40 a.m.

4. Rest of the details of the occurrence were given by the abductee himself while appearing as P.W.8. According to him on 22-4-1990 he went for a morning walk to Liberty Park, Gulberg, Lahore. After the walk he came out of the Park at about 6-30 a.m. and when he had just unlocked his car a Honda Civic Car of white colour 1986-87 model followed by another car stopped near him. Four persons with muffled faces armed with Klashnikovs came out of it. They forced him to sit in their car after placing the Klashnikovs close to his head. Their ages ranged between 22 and 27 years and they were wearing Joggers and T-Shirts. They made him sit on the rear seat. Two of the accused sat on his sides, the third sat on the front seat while the 4th drove the car. They directed him to keep his head down. The car kept an moving for about 2/2-1/2 hours whereafter he was taken to the farm of Usman Tariq P.W.4 at Raiwind Road. After reaching the farm he was brought out of the car blind folded and taken away to a room where the piece of cloth was removed from his eyes. The four accused who had brought him to the said place used filthy and abusive language and threatened him that if he did not act according to their wishes, or raised hue and cry they would kill him. The accused who had brought him to the said farm, included Javed Mawaz, Hussaini and Azhar Hussain. They told him that their Khaleefa was coming and if he refused to act according to their wishes, they would teach him a lesson. Meanwhile, Javed Mawaz appellant came there and said that he had borrowed from the old Sheikh a sum of Rs.2-1/2 lac and he had insulted him when he was in the hospital and since that day he had decided to take revenge from him, and demanded a sum of Rs.10 crore as ransom from him. During the night between 22nd and 23rd of March Hussaini and another accused stayed at the farm to watch him.

On the following day in the morning Javed Mawaz, Hussaini and another accused came to the said farm and took him in a car to Gulberg, after putting a piece of cloth on his eyes. He was made to climb 8-10 stairs. and seated in a room having a ventilator covered with a piece of cloth. He was kept there till 11-5-1990. During this period Hussaini and Javed Mawaz met him for 4-5 times and once they made him write a letter to his son Hassan Aftab that he should pay a sum of Rs.10 crore to somebody named Fareed. They are also alleged to have tape-recorded his conversation stating that a compromise had been arrived at with the accused against the payment of Rs.4 crore as ransom. 3-4 more tapes were prepared by the accused on the same day giving out different dates. The abductee further stated that Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellants came to him on 11-5-1990 at about 5-00 p.m. and told him that finally a bargain had been struck with his son Hassan Aftab against the payment of ransom amounting to Rs.54 lac. At about 9-30 p.m. they again came to him informed him that Rs.54 lac since been paid, therefore, they would release him close to his house. They warned him not to disclose the occurrence to anybody, which was in his own interest otherwise since they were hardened criminals he would find it difficult to face them. According to the abductee during the period of his confinement the accused used to play music on a loud tone lest he should hear any sound from outside. On account of the threats issued to him, he always felt that his life was in danger. They brought him out of that house and seated him in a car which kept on moving for about half an hour, whereafter he was directed to get down from it with a piece of cloth on his eyes. They further directed him to remove it only when they blow horn of the car and that he would find himself very, close to his residence. T-hey again threatened him that if he reported the matter to the Police or disclosed their natpes, he, his wife and children would be done to death. After getting down from the car and having walked for 4-5 minutes, he removed the piece of cloth from his eyes on hearing the horn and found himself near his house. He entered the house and met his family members who were in a depressing and frighted condition. After about 30-45 minutes his driver Muhammad Ashiq P.W.7 came there and informed them that the ransom amount of Rs.54 lac had been taken a*ay from the car by Javed Mawaz and Hussaini. Thereafter, he disconnected the telephone lines and locked the house so that nobody comes to see them. According to the abductee in the following morning, i.e. on 12-5-1990 his Chowkidar informed him that Javed Mawaz and his wife Neelam Mawaz had come to see him and were sitting in the drawing room. He met them. Javed Mawaz took out a pistol and threatened him not to narrate the incident to anybody otherwise he would face very serious consequences. He told him that he was a hardened criminal and killed his first wife and the first husband of his present wife and that Hussaini had also spent 8 years in a jail in America in a smuggling case, 'whereafter they left his house. When the Police came to know of his return through press, they started paying frequent visits to his house. Because of the threats from the accused persons and frequent visits of the Police he remained in an absolutely puzzled and confused state of mind and felt. frightened also.

The abductee stated that on 9-6-1990 Shafquat, D.S.P. came to his office and told him that if he would cooperate and help them, they would reach the real culprits. On that day he thought of leaving Pakistan alongwith his family for the time being so that he felt relaxed and the Police also proceeded ahead with the investigation freely and that he would also be out of the threats of Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellants. With that thing in his mind he for the first time narrated the actual and true story to the Police except the names of the accused. As per programme one of his daughter and son left the country from Islamabad for London on 12-6-1990. On 24-6-1990 his wife and daughter left and on 3-7-1990 he himself left for London where they stayed for about a month. According to him he returned to Pakistan on 6-8-1990. Feroze S.I. got in touch with him on 11-8-1990 and told him that they were very close to the criminals/kidnappers and that he should disclose their names as there was no danger now. Since he had already mentally prepared himself not to be blackmailed any more by Javed Mawaz and Hussaini accused, he immediately agreed and-for the first time disclosed the names of the accused persons, i.e. Javed Mawaz, Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini, Athar Hussain alias Goji, Naeem Haider, Azhar Hussain, Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi and Kamran Saleem to Feroze, S. I. On the next day on the asking of Feroze, S. I. he showed him tire places of his confinement viz. the farm of , Usama Tariq and the house in Gulberg, Lahore.

5. During investigation Usman Tariq got his statement recorded before the Police on 28-8-1990, stating that he was maintaining an agricultural farm at Raza Abad, Raiwind Road, Lahore. On 21-4-1990 Major Javed Mawaz and Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini met him at his farm and sought his permission to stay there alongwith their friends. He acceded to their request. On 23-4-1990 his servant Ulfat Hussain P.W. 5 informed him on phone that Javed Mawaz and Hussaini alongwith some other persons had brought a person to the farm after kidnapping him, while being armed with automatic weapons. He came to know of the name,of the abductee as Sh. Aftab Ahmed, later on. According to Usama Tariq his servant told him that he had asked the accused to leave the place immediately otherwise he would report the matter to the Police. The companions of Javed Mawaz and Hussaitu disclosed their names to him as Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi, Athar Hussain alias Goji, Azhar Hussain, Kamran Saleem and Naeem Haider. They took away the abductee in a car of white colour. According to Usama Tariq, since he had been receiving threatening telephone calls, he did not report the matter to anybody ti1128-8-1990.

6. Ulfat Hussain P.W. 5 also appeared before the Police on 28-8-1990 and narrated the same story. He too, stated that he did not appear before the Police earlier on account of fear.

7. Hussain Aftab P.W. 15 son of the abductee recorded his statement before the Police on 11-8-1990 stating that after the abduction of his father he had received a telephonic call from some unknov~n persons to the effect that Sh. Aftab Ahmed was in their custody and he could be released only on payment of Rs.10 crore, failing which he would be killed. ' The negotiation continued with them and ultimately the matter was settled at R-.54 lac. He was threatened not to disclose to the Police otherwise he and his fa er both would be killed. Out of fear he did not disclose it to the Police. After the money was arranged it was put in a bag and given to Muhammad Ashiq driver P.W.7 and Ahmed Hussain Niazi, Manager (not examined on account of death), on receipt of which his father was released. On his inquiry Muhammad Ashiq driver and Ahmed Hassan Niazi told him that they could identify the accused who had received the ransom amount.

8. Muhammad Ashiq, driver P.W.7 got his statement recorded before the Police on 11-6-1990. According to him on the asking of Hassan Aftab son of the abductee, he alongwith Ahmed Hassan Niazi, Manager Sunshine Cotton Mills went in a car to the place settled for the payment of ransom amount, after placing the amount of Rs.54 lac in a cloth bag and on reaching the said place they opened the back door of the car and stood at a distance of 100 yards. After a short while a car stopped near their car, Some persons came out of that car and took away the bag containing cash. As they were having full lights of their car on, they could not note down the number of that car or number of the accused, taking away the bag containing cash.

9. Agha Zawar Hussain P. W. 6 who claimed to have seen the abduction of Sh. Aftab Ahmed, appeared before the Police on 11-8-1990 and stated that on 22-4-1990 he alongwith Mubarik Ali (not examined) was on his way to Gulbahar Colony and.on reaching near the Liberty Garden saw Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi, Athar Hussain alias Goji, Naeem Haider and Kamran Saleem armed with Klashnikovs in car. In another car he noticed Maj. Javed Mawaz and Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini appellants. The accused carne out of their car and forcibly abducted Sh. Aftab Ahmed and took him along in a car. According to him the abovementioned accused were previously know to him. He too stated that on account of fear of the accused he did not report the matter to the Police earlier than 11-8-1990.

10. The case was investigated by several Police Officers, namely, Abdur Rashid, S.I. P.W.9, Muhammad Ashraf Zahid, Inspector P.W.16, Ch. Muhammad Raza, D.S.P. P.W.17 and Muhammad Feroze, S.I. P.W.18. Ch. Muhammad Raza, D. S. P. Crimes Branch, Lahore recorded the statements of Sh. Aftab Ahmed and Muhammad Ashiq driver on 9-6-1990. He carried out investigation till 1-7-1990 whereafter he was transferred to Okara.

Muhammad Feroze, S.I. P. W.18 carried out the major investigation. He arrested Javed Mawaz, Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini and Azhar Hussain on 12-8-1990. On 14-10-1990 Neelam Mawaz was arrested by him upon rejection of her pre-arrest bail application. On the pointation of Sh. Aftab Ahmed, the abductee, he prepared site plan Exh.PB of the farm of Usama Tariq and. Exh.PX of the house of Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini accused. On 17-10-1990 Nissan Patrol Jeep Registration No. 2055M (P.52) was produced before him by Jehangir Rehman brother of Neelam Mawaz vide memo. Exh. PT, attested by Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable P. W. I 1 and Muhammad Ashraf Constable (given-up). On 17-8-1990 household articles such as Fridge, Air?Conditioner, Pedestal Fans, Soofa sets and furniture etc. (P.5-51) were recovered on the pointation of Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini from his house vide memo. Exh. PQ, attested by Abdur Rashid, S.I. P. W.9, Muhammad Anwar, S.1. P.W.10 and Liaquat Ali, S.1. (given up).

On 18-8-1990 Muhpmmad Hussain alias Hussaini got recovered cash amounting to Rs.80,000 in the shape of currency notes of Rs:.500 each (P.1/1-160) from his house vide memo. Exh.PL attested by Zulfiqar Ali P.W.3 and Feroze, S.1, P.W.18.

11. On 18-8-1990 Javed Mawaz appellant led to the recovery of cash amounting to Rs. one lac (P.2/1-60 and P.3 /1-400) from the drawer of a table in his house, vide memo. Exh. PM, attested by Zulfiqar Ali P. W.3 and Muhammad Feroze, S. L. P.W.18. While under arrest on 15-8-1990 he led to the recovery of Pajero Jeep LOA/7909 (P.4) alongwith registration book, vide memo. Exh.PW, attested by Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable P.W.11 and Muhammad Feroze, S.1. P.W.18.

On 16-8-1990 Azhar Hussain led to the recovery of cash amounting to Rs.30,000 (P.53/1-20 and P.54/1=20) from his house vide Memo. Exh.PY, attested by Muhammad Ashiq, P. W.7 and Muhammad Feroze, S. I. P.W.18.

12. Sh. Zahoor Ahmed car dealer appeared as P.W.12 and stated that Nissan Patrol Jeep bearing Chasis No.106912, Engine No.035944, was received by him from Karachi on 18-5-1990 and its delivery was given on 19-5-1990. He proved photo copy Exh.PU/1 of the receipt and Exh.PU/2 of the register. The name of Javed Mawaz is mentioned in Exh.PV/1.

13. Shah Muhammad, S.I. P.W.13 stated that he had made inquiries from Sh. Zahoor Ahmed, Clearing Agent P. W.12 regarding Nissan Patrol Jeep and obtained four copies of the relevant papers Exhs.PU/I and PU/2, vide memo. Exh.PU. He accompanied Muhammad Feroze, S.I. to Jhelum and Met the Excise and Taxation Officer concerned who d6livered Bilti Form Exh.PV/I and Port Trust receipt Exh.PV/2, octroi receipt Exh.PV/3 and a paper regarding Customs Exh.PV/4, which were secured vide Memo. Exh.PV. According to him the said vehicle bearing Registration No. JM/205 was registered at Jhelum.

14. Muhammad Yusuf, S. I. P.W.14 prepared rough site plan Exh.PW of the Liberty Garden, wherefrom the alleged abduction had taken place.

15. Muhammad Feroze, S. I. P.W.18 recorded the statements of Sh. Aftab Ahmed, Hassan Aftab, Shahid Saeed, Muhammad Ashiq driver, Agha Zawar Hussain and Mubarik Ali on 11-8-1990. The statements of Usama Tariq and Ulfat Hussain under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded by him on 26/28-8-1990. After completing the investigation he challaned the accused.

16. The prosecution produced eigtheen witnesses to prove its case. Mubarik Ali, Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Salim P. Ws. were given up as having been won over..

Muhammad Rafiq, P. W.1 is maker of the F. I. R. (Exh.PJ). Ashfaq Hussain Shah, S. I. P. W.2 recorded the formal F. I. R. Exh. PK Sh. Aftab Ahmad P.W. 8 and'Agha Zawar Hussain P.W.6 deposed about the abduction. Usama Tariq P.W.4 and Ulfat Hussain P.W. 5 proved the taking of the abductee to the agricultutral farm of the former at Raiwind Road. Hassan Aftab P. W.15 and Muhammad Ashiq P. W.7 deposed about the payment of ransom to the accused. Zulfiqar Ali P.W.3, Abdur Rashid, S.I. P.W.9, Muhammad Anwar, S.I. P.W.10, Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable P.W.11 and Muhammad Feroze, S.I. P. W.18 proved the recoveries of cash, household articles, Nissan Patrol Jeep and Pajero jeep at the instance of the accused. Sh. Zahoor Ahmed P.W.12 was examined to prove the delivery of Nissan Patrol Jeep to Javed Mawaz after its receipt from Karachi. Shah Muhammad, S.I. P.W.13 deposed about the seizure of clearance documents regarding Nissan Patrol vehicle. He also deposed about the collection of registration papers from the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Jhelum regarding registration of the said . vehicle. Ch. Muhammad Raza, D.S.P. P.W.17 and S.I. Muhammad Feroze P.W.18 investigated the case.

17. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the case against them had been fabricated by S. I. Muhammad Feroze, at the instance of Sh. Aftab Ahmed. Explaining his involvement in the case, Javed Mawaz appellant made the following statement:--

"I met a road traffic accident on 6-9-1989 near Sargodha, in which my left tibia and noze bone were badly smashed and fractured. I also received injury on my both arms and left eye brow. In such a serious condition I was immediately removed to PAF Hospital, Sargodha for medical aid. I remained admitted there for one day. Thereafter, I was removed to Sh. Zayed Hospital, Lahore and remained admitted there till 18-9-1989 when I was discharged. Grafting and nailing was done on the left knee and left tibia. The nails are still fixed in the bones and would be removed by the Orthopaedic Surgeon, after due examination and after the period of one and half year. I remained in crutches till 28-3-1990. I produce my photograph in crutches which is Exh.DAA. I also produce the original discharge certificate issued by Zayed Hospital Exh.DBB. I also produce the discharge summary issued from Zayed Hospital, Lahore consisting of two pages which are Exh.DBB/1 and Exh.DBB/2. Till 11-8-1990 no accused had been named before the police, no place of alleged illegal confinement was available with the police till then. Before 11-8-1,990 according to the evidence produced in the Court, the prosecution story was that only four boys aged between 22 to 28 years had allegedly abducted Sh. Aftab Ahmed, P.W. in a car, only one car was stated to be used in the said offence and there was no allegations that any threats were extended by the abductors to Sh. Aftab Ahmad P.W. or his family, for not disclosing the identity of the alleged abductors. It was for the first time on 11-8-1990 that Muhammad Feroze, S.I. managed to fabricate the evidence of two alleged eye-witnesses namely Mubarik Ali real brother of his own wife and Zawar Hussain the friend of Mubarik Ali, as the persons who had actually seen the abduction of Sh. Aftab Ahmad on 22-4-1990 and nominated seven accused persons including my name. These two witnesses of their own came to S. I. Feroze in P. S. Qila Gujar Singh on 11-8-1990 at 12-00 noon and their statements were recorded by S.I. Muhammad Feroze. Thereafter, on the same afternoon S. I. Muhammad Feroze maliciously and with ulterior motives visited the house of Sh.Aftab Ahmed and also fabricated his statement in line with the statements of two alleged eye-witnesses already recorded by him. In this supplementary statement of Sh. Aftab Ahmed recorded on 11-8-1990 he reproduced the same allegations which he had recorded earlier in the statements of Zawar Hussain and Mubarik Ali, He nominated the seven accused including myself, introduced two cars in which seven accused had abducted Sh. Aftab. He also introduced two alleged places of his confinement. Later on Sh. Aftab Ahmed managed the services of Usama Tariq and Ulfat Hussain P. Ws. before S.I. Muhammad Feroze and they were made false statement regarding the alleged illegal confinement of Sh.Aftab. These two witnesses also appeared before S.1 Muhammad Feroze at Qila Gujjar Singh of their own when he recorded their statements on 28-9-1990 as stated by S.I. Feroze during the trial in Court on 10-11-1990. Moreover, Begum Nasreen Aftab wife of Sh. Aftab Ahmed had been, off and on meeting me on different occasions. She had given me a registered General Power of Attorney regarding her two plots of land situated in Defence. Area, Lahore, measuring about 18 Kanals. The original Registered documents have already been produced and exhibited during the trial and had been admitted by Sh. Aftab Ahmad in his statement. Begum Nasreen had purchased this land without the knowledge of her husband and she had executed the two General Powers of Attorneys in my name also without the knowledge of her husband. I am renowned player of polo. I am member of Executive Body of Polo Club, Lahore and the member of Polo Association. Begum Nasreen Aftab had been visiting Polo exhibition matches in Polo Grounds, Lahore, on my invitations. I also invited her to be the Chief Guest of the Ceremony which took place in the year 1988, in which French Polo Team had visited Lahore and played exhibition match. She donated Rs.25,000 in that function to the Polo Club on my request but without the knowledge of her husband. On account of these reasons there was a continued bickering and ill-feelings of Sh. Aftab Ahmed with his wife, as he had been continuously directing her to stop meeting with me on all such occasions. It was one of the reasons that Sh. Aftab P. W. has falsely. involved me in this case. As it has been given out in the press at Lahore that Sh. Aftab himself concealed somewhere due to some dispute and also in the complaint Exh. PJ, it has been specifically mentioned that some unknown persons had taken away Sh. Aftab Ahmed, would indicate that he concealed himself somewhere due to the reasons best known to him. Further, it is most doubtful and unbelievable that after his alleged release by abductors on 11-5-1990, although according to his own statement in Court, Sh. Aftab P.W. had been meeting with S.S.P. and D.I.-G., Lahore; off and on but he did not disclose the names of his alleged abductors or any other details of his alleged illegal confinement to those officers. Even on 9-6-1990 when his statement was recorded in detail by Muhammad Raza, D. S . P., P. W. ,and Shafquat Ahmed D. S . P. P. W.,

Sh. Aftab Ahmed did not name any of his alleged abductors, nor did he state anything about his alleged place of confinement with effect from 22-4-1990 till 11-5-1990. Rather, it has been stated therein on 9-6-1990 which has also been admitted by Sh. Aftab Ahmed in his statement before this Court that on 9-6-1990 his version of the case was that only four boys aged between 22 and 28 years were his abductors and there was only one car used in that alleged crime and that he aid not disclose the places where allegedly he remained illegally confined between 22-4-1990 to 11-5-1990. Even Ashiq, P.W. driver of Sh. Aftab who was allegedly one of the witnesses who had taken the ransom amount of Rs.54 lac in cloth bag at a particular place had been examined by Muhammad Raza, DSP on 9-6-1990. Ashiq P. W. had not named any person who had taken the cloth bag said to contain Rs.54 lac ransom amount from the car parked by him in the Defence Area. Rather in his statement dated 9-6-1990 Ashiq P.W. had categorically stated that he could not see and identify the number and the shade of the car in which the persons' come to collect the ransom and that he could not even tell the number of the persons who came in the car for the reason that the car came to that place with full lights on and after removing the bag from his car, they took away their car in reverse position with full lights on. But on 11-8-1990 Muhammad Feroze S.I. recorded the supplementary statement of Muhammad Ashiq, P.W. in which no persons were nominated by him who had come in the car to collect the ransom. Rather, it was stated by Ashiq in that statement that he could identify those persons if they were brought before him. But it is very cruel that at the trial Muhammad Ashiq P.W. under the influence of Sh. Aftab P.W. and under the instructions of Muhammad- Feroze, S.I. and after getting legal advice, made an absolutely false statement that one of the persons who had removed the bag containing the ransom amount was Javed Nawaz accused present in Court. In this way I have been falsely involved only by the fabrications made by Muhammad Feroze, with the active assistance of Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. who has got previous enmity with me which I have stated above. He has a very serious motive to implicate me falsely in this case. I produce the daily 'Nawa-i-Waqt' dated 10-5-1990 and daily 'Jang' dated 13-5-1990 which are marked as ' X' , ' Y' . "

18. Azhar Hussain accused stated that he and his brother, namely. Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi and Athar Hussain alias Goji had been falsely involved by S.I. Muhammad Feroze who had illegally removed Rs.30,000 from his mother's house.

Neelam Mawaz wife of Javed Mawaz appellant also denied the prosecution allegation of having led to the recovery of Nissan Patrol Jeep Registration No.205/J.M. on 17-10-1990. She stated that the vehicle was owned by her and was duly registered in her name on 19-4-1990 by the Motor Registration Authority, Jhelum and had been produced before the Police by her brother Jehangir Rehman. She stated that registration certificate which was seized by the Police, was withheld by them with an ulterior motive. She produced its photo copy Exh.DFF.

Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini denied that after abduction Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. had been kept in his house No.N-4, Gulberg-II, Lahore from 23-4-1990 to 11-5-1990. He stated that he did not reside in house No. 4 but in house No.N/3-Gulberg, Lahore. As regards the recovery of Articles P.5-51 from his house, he stated that the said articles belonged to his .mother and brothers. Explaining the recovery of cash amounting to Rs.80,000 from his house, he stated that Muhammad Feroze, S.I. had forcibly broken open the lock of an Almirah in the house of his mother and brothers and from there had taken away the said amount. He stated that S'.l. Muhammad Feroze had fabricated the case against him by procuring the services'of his brother-in-law Mubarik Eli and Zawar Hussain a companion of Mubarik Ali. He stated that S.I Muhammad Feroze had been illegally detaining him and demanding Rs.2 lac as bribe from him, failing which he threatened him of false involvement in this case. According to him, his brother had submitted an application against, him (S.I. Muhammad Feroze). to the Anti-Corruption Department regarding ius demand of illegal gratification and illegal removal of household articl.s.

19. The appellants examined Malik Arshad Ahmed brother of Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini appellant as D.W.1. He deposed about the filing of writ petition in the High Court against the highhandedness of S.I. Muhammad peroze for taking away household articles from their hose No.N-4, Gulberg, Lahore including jewellery and cash.

Begum Khalida Rehman widow o f late Vice Air Marshal M.A. Rehman appeared as D.W.2. She is mother of Neelam Mawaz appellant. According to her S.I. Muhammad Feroze alongwith another Police official had broken open the lock of an Almiiah in her house and taken away case-box containing currency notes of Rs. one lac. She denied that her son-in-law Javed Mawaz was accompanying the Police at that time. She added that on 15-8-1990 S.I.

Muhammad Feroze had taken away Pajero vehicle No.7909/LOA registered in the name of her daughter Neelam Mawaz from her house which was in her possession for the last about 2 years and was registered in her name. She added that she had withdrawn Rs.7 lac from the bank and in support thereof produced photo copy of her pass book Exh.DJJ/1-7.

Tahir Majeed, Crime Reporter daily ' Nawa-i-Waqt' appeared as D.W.3. He stated that the issue of 'Nawa-e-Waqt' dated 10-5-1990 Exh.DHH contained a news item regarding the return of Sh. Aftab Ahmed. He stated that on receipt of news about the return of Sh. Aftab on 9-5-1990 he went to his house situate at 6-Ahmed Block, New Garden Town, Lahore at 9-30 p.m. He inquired from a servant about the return of Sheikh Sahib but he denied his return to the house. He also denied the payment of ransom for the release of Sh. Aftab Ahmed. On a further inquiry he told them that Sheikh Sahib would be back home on 10-5-1990.

Jamil Chishti, Special Staff Correspondent, daily 'Jang' appeared as D.W.4. According to him he had met Sh. Aftab Ahmed at his residence on 12-5-1990 in the company of a photographer who took his photographs during the conversation. He proved the said conversation appearing in the issue of daily 'fang' dated 13-5-1990 (Exh. DJJ). He added that whatever had been stated by Sh. Aftab Ahmed, had been exactly published in the newspaper.

Caption of, the news appearing in the issue of daily ' Nawa-i-Waqt' , Lahore dated 10-5-1990 was as under:--

20. The learned trial Court considered the abscondence of Mazhar Hussain alias Tibbi, Athar Hussain alais Goji, Naeem Haider and Kamran Saleem a strong piece of corroborative evidence of their participation in the crime and thus sentence them to imprisonment for life plus confiscation of their properties. The abscondence of Muhammad Hassan and Mansur Hussain appellants were also treated as a corroborative piece of evidence of their culpability in the offence. They were considered entitled to lenient sentence because the only allegation against them was of having received money out of ransom from their brother Hussaini appellant. They were, therefore, sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years each under section 365-A, P.P.C.

The abscondence of Neelam Mawaz appellant was also considered as a strong piece of corroborative evidence. Recovery of Nissan patrol vehicle bearing No.JM/205 was also considered as a circumstances against her.' Her accompanying Javed Mawaz appellant to the house of Sh. Aftab Ahmed on 12-5-1990 when threats were issued to Sh. Aftab Ahmed- by her husband, was considered as a circumstance proving that the offence had been committed with her conspiracy and connivance and that she had purchased Nissan Patrol vehicle with the ransom amount. Since she was not found to have actually participated in the abduction, a lenient view was taken in respect of her and she was sentenced to 7 years' R.I.

21. Tariq Masud and Azhar Hussain accused were acquitted because the learned counsel for the complainant had conceded that the recovery, of Rs.30,000 from Azhar Hussain was doubtful.

22. According to learned trial Court the factum of abductipn stood proved by the evidence of Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W.8, Agha Zawar ~lussain P.W.6, Usama Tariq P.W.4 and Ulfat Hussain P.W.5, while the payment of ransom to the appellants was proved by the evidence of Hassan Aftab P.W.15 and Muhammad Ashiq driver of Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W.7. Pajero Jeep bearing No.LOA/7909, Nissan Patrol No. JM/205 and cash amounting to Rs.1,80,000 were ordered to be delivered to Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W:

Learned trial Court was of the view that omissions in the statements of the P.Ws. were not fatal to the prosecution case. Conduct of Sh. Aftab Ahmed and the other P. Ws. in not coming forward at the earliest; was also not considered,as detracting from the evidentiary value of their statements on account of the explanation given by them that they did so on account of fear of the accused who were hardened criminals. The learned dial Court further observed that even if the P. Ws. had some connections with Sh. ' Aftab Ahmed, their testimony could not be discarded in the absence of any enmity towards the appellants. The circumstance that the accused had admitted before the police at the time of recovery of cash to be part of ransom was also considered as a circumstance against the accused. The improvements made by Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W.8, the abductee, were not considered as fatal to the prosecution. The circumstance of the abductee not disclosing the names of the accused and other details and the manner in which he was kept under detention, in his earlier statements before the police, was not given any weight because according to the learned trial Court he was all the time under terror and threats after having stayed with the abductors for 20 days and his mind was not normal. The failure of the appellants to prove mala fides on the part of Muhammad Feroze, S.I. for fabrication of the case against them, was used as a circumstance against them.

23. Criticizing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellants contend that the prosecution has failed to prove any connection of Javed Mawaz with Hussaini, Mazhar Hussain and Athar Hussain etc. Failure to hold test identification parade of the appellants was fatal to the prosecution case. It is further argued that inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution witnesses especially the abductee in disclosing the true story before the Police makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. The recoveries of vehicles are assailed on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that they had been purchased with the ransom amount or were connected with the-commission of offence in any way. The recoveries of cash and household articles are stated to be of no significance, for, the same could not be connected with the prosecution case. The very abduction of Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. is stated to be doubtful in view of the news reports appearing daily ' Nawa-i-Waqt' and daily ' Jang' . Non-framing of proper charge against Muhammad Hussain, Manzur Hussain and Neelam Mawaz accused was also made a ground of attack. Serious objection was raised to the order passed by the Court for the delivery of vehicles to the complainanat after the pronouncement of judgment when at the time of pronouncement of judgment they were ordered to be kept intact, till the period of appeal or revision. Conduct of Muhammad Feroze, S.I. in becoming overzealous to involve the appellants in the case was also highlighted by learned eounsel for the appellants.

24. Learned Advocate-General though supporting the conviction candidly conceded that the recoveries of vehicles, cash and household articles were not connected with the offence because there was no material to show that they had been purchased with the ransom amount. He also could not explain the participation of Sh. Aftab Ahmed, the abductee, in the marriage ceremony of the brother of Javed Mawaz appellant on 27-6-1990. Explaining the contradictory statements made by the abductee at different stages of the investigation he stated that those were probably on account of the harassment caused to him by the appellants.

25. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that omissions by the P.Ws. in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. could not be treated as contradictions, and imporvemens trade by them were not fatal to the prosecution case. According to him the abduction stood proved by the statement of Sh. Aftab Ahmed and Agha Zawar Hussain P.Ws. while the payment of ransom was proved by the evidence of Muhammad Ashiq P.W.7 and Hassan Aftab P.W.15.

The recoveries of vehicles, cash etc. is a strong corroborative piece of evidence against the appellants. The evidence of defence witnesses is assailed on the ground that Malik Arshad Ahmed D.W.I and Begum Khalida Rehman were closely related to the appellants. Malik Arshad Ahmed D.W.1 is brother of Hussaini appellant while Begun Khalida Rehman -D.W.2 is mother of Neelam Mawaz appellant. The evidence of Tahir Majeed D.W.3 and Jamil Chishti D.W.4 Press Reporters is without any significance, The evidence of D.W.3 was hearsay while that of D.WA was without any corroboration.

26. According to the prosecution Sh. Aftab Ahmed was abducted on 22-4-1990 and was released on 11-5-1990 but he got his statement Exh.DT recorded before the Police for the first time on 9-6-1990, In_ the said statement he did not name any of the accused including Javed Mawaz appellant, although he claimed acquaintance with him well before his abduction. As per that statement he was abducted by four young boys but in the subsequent statement Exh.DU, dated 11-8-1990 he increased the number of his abductors to seven, he claimed acquaintance with Javed Mawaz appellant only but could not explain as to how he came to know of the names of the other accused. At the trial, he stated that he had been meeting the S.S.P., Lahore and the D.I.G., Lahore during May, June, July and August, 1990 but it is surprising that he did not disclose full details of :.he occurrence to them. According to him he had not been cooperating with th? Police, after his release till 9-6-1990 but he failed to give any reasonable explanation for it. He admitted that with the exception of names of the accused he had disclosed the entire story to the Police on 9-6-1990, but important details of the occurrence are missing from that statement. He admitted having made improvements upon his statement dated 9-6-1990 Exh. DT. As per his that statement ages of the accused ranged between 22 and 27 years but at the trial he estimated the age of Javed Mawaz appellant as 50 years and that of Hussaitu as 45 years. In the statement Exh. DT dated 9-6-1990 there is no mention at all of Javed Mawaz appellant owing Rs.2-1/2 lac to him. At the trial, he stated to have identified Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellants sitting in the second car but no such thing was mentioned by him in his statements dated 9-6-1990 and 11-8-1990. There is a contradiction about the number of the cars used in the commission of crime. As per first statement of the abductee before the Police only one car was used but in his statement at the trial he introduced another car, regarding which he could not give any explanation. As regards the allegation that the accused got letters written by him to his son Hassan Aftab about the payment of ransom, he admitted that he did not tell this fact to the Police nor of the accused having prepared cassettes of the conversation. At the trial, he stated that on the following day of his release Javed Mawaz and his wife Neelatn Mawaz had come to see him and that he had met them in the drawing-room of his house but this was not mentioned by hint in his Police statements DT and DU. From the material on record it appear. that some other persons, namely, Raees Kalia and Shahid etc. were also suspected of being involved in his abduction. Sh. Aftab Ahmed admitted being aware of the news item appearing in the issue of daily ' Nawa-i-Waqt' dated 10-5-1990 that a day before his alleged release he (Aftab Sheikh) had come back, had been abducted due to some husinqs dispute and was taking rest at his house at Karachi and would return to Lah6re on the next day and that n o ransom had been paid. But he did not contradict it.

27. From the statement of Sh. Aftab Ahmed it appears that Javed Mawaz appellant was the principal accused who arranged and organised his abduction for being annoyed with him on account of the demand made by him about the payment of loan amounting to Rs. 2-1/2 lac but it passes our comprehension as to why in the background of such hostile. circumstances he and his wife participated in the marriage ceremony of Saqib Mawaz brother of Javed Mawaz appellant taking place on 27-6-1990 at Avari Hotel, Lahore. i.e. two months and five days after his abduction. This lends support to the argument of the learned counsel that by that time he did not know his abductors.

28. According to Sh. Aftab Ahmed abductee, he did not disclose the name of Javed Mawaz appellant in his earlier statement because he was a desperado and hardened criminal and was, therefore, afraid of him. This explanation is not considered satisfactory. There is nothing on the record to show previous involvement of Javed Mawaz in any criminal case. If, however, the abductee had some personal knowledge about his character why was he then maintaining friendly relations with him and had been visiting him alongwith his wife Mst. Nasreen Aftab. His wife would not have given a power of attorney to him authorizing him to deal with her valuable property situate in Lahore, if he was really a criminal.

29. The motive attributed to Javed Mawaz appellant for the abduction of Sh. Aftab Ahmed is also not appealing. According to the abductee, Javed Mawaz appellant was annoyed with him on the demand made by him for the return of loan. In this context a reference may be made to the statement made by Sh. Aftab Ahmed at the trial admitting that Javed Mawaz had repaid the, said amount to him prior to the registration of case. There was thus no reason for Javed Mawaz appellant to nourish any grudge against him on that score.

30. : Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. is said to have been abducted on 22-4-1990 and resurfaced on 11-5-1990 but the witnesses appeared before the 'Police for the first time on the following dates:--

Sir. Aftab Ahmed P. W.8 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 9-6-1990

AghaZawar Hussain P. W.6 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11-8-1990

Usama Tariq P.W.4 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26-8-1990

Ulfat Hussain P.W.5 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28-8-1990

(servant elf Usama Tariq)

Hassan Aftab P.W.l5 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1-8-1990

(son of the abductee).

31. Ransom money was allegedly paid on 11-5-1990, while its witnesses appeared before the Police on:--

Muhammad Ashiq P.W. 7. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11-8-1990

Hassan Aftab P.W. 15 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11-8-1990

According to the prosecution witnesses they did not appear before the Police on account of fear of the accused. Such an explanation is ~not acceptable in law and no latitude can be given to the witnesses not coming forward at the earliest opportunity. Delayed statements before the Police are always viewed with suspicion and doubt. Judicial precedents view sucl~ delay as fatal to the prosecution case. Even the delay of 48 hours or of ene or two weeks was not considered reasonable in the following cases:-

(1) M uhammad Sadiq v. The State PLD 1960 SC 223.

(2) Qabal Shah and others v. The State PLD 1960 Karachi 697.

(3) Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State 1993 SCMR 550.

(4) Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984 SCMR 930.

32. It is borne out from the record that most of the P. Ws. did not know the accused previously. Only Javed Mawaz appellant was known to some of the witnesses but no effort was made to hold a test identification parade of the other accused after their arrest. This circumstance also weighs heavily against the prosecution. Identification parades are held not as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence to eliminate the possibility of any mistake. In Kak alias Abdul Razzaq v. The State (PLD 1965 Karachi 31) evidence of the witness as to the identity of the accused who was not acquainted with him prior to the occurrence, was not considered of much value.

33. As regards the payment of ransom money, only Muhammad Ashiq P.W.7 driver of Sh. Aftab Ahmed was examined by the prosecution. He claimed to have seen Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellants sitting * in the car, that collected the ransom money on I 1-5-1990. According to his own showing he did not know Hussaini appellant previously but no identification parade was held. He did not disclose even the name of Javed Mawaz in his first statement before the Police dated 11-8-1990. He failed to give any plausible excuse for not disclosing the names of the accused receiving the ransom amount earlier than 11-8-1990.

34. The serial numbers of the currency notes paid as ransom, were neither noted down at the time of payment nor at the time of their recovery. No public witness was examined to prove the recovery of cash amounting to Rs.80,000 from the house of Hussaini appellant on 18-8-1990. Hussaini has claimed it as belonging to his family. According to him the currency notes were secured by the Police from House No. 4-N, Gulberg-II, Lahore occupied by his mother and brothers and the same belonged to them. He examined Malick Arshad Ahmed D. W.1 in his defence who stated that S. I. Muhammad Feroze had taken away Rs.80,000 from their house No. 4-N, Gulberg-II, Lahore and that he and his mother had filed writ petitions in the High Court against the high-handedness of the Police. He further stated that even the household articles belonging to them which they had purchased long before the occurrence, were also seized by S.I. Muhammad Feroze, regarding which a complaint was made to the Anti. Corruption Department against him, which is still pending.

35. Likewise, the recovery of cash amounting to Rs. one lac at the instance of Javed Mawaz appellant on 18-8-1990, does not advance the case of the prosecution for two-fold reasons, first, that Javed Mawaz appellant was not asked to explain this circumstance in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and second that no independent witness was examined to prove it. Zulfiqar Ali P.W.3 who was produced by the prosecution is a security guard of Sh. Aftab Ahmed. No witness from the locality was examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to connect the recovered currency notes with the alleged offence.

36. The recoveries of Nissan Patrol and Pajero vehicles also do not corroborate the prosecution case. Pajero (P.4) was allegedly recovered from the house of Javed Mawaz appellant on 15-8-1990. It was secured by the Police to show that it had been purchased with the ransom money but it has miserably failed to do so. According to Javed Mawaz it was snatched by S.I. Muhammad Feroze from his wife Neelam Mawaz appellant when she visited P.S. Qila Gujjar Singh. According to him it stood registered in her name much before the occurrence in question. Begum Khalida Rehman mother of Neelam Mawaz appellant appeared as D.W. 2 and stated that the Pajero in question was in possession of her daughter for the last about 2 years and stood registered in her name.

Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a certificate issued by the Motor Registration Authority, Lahore certifying that it stood registered in the name of Neelam Mawaz since 24-2-1990, i.e. about 2 months prior to the occurrence. So far as Nissan Patrol vehicle (P.52) is concerned it was allegedly produced before the Police by the brother of Neelam Mawaz appellant on 17-10-1990. The prosecution case is that this too had been purchased with the ransom money but it has failed to prove the same. Neelam Mawaz appellant has owned it. According to her it was duly registered in her name on 19-4-1990 by the Motor Registration Authority and Taxation, Jhelum. In support of it she produced original Registration Book which was returned by the trial Court after keeping on record its photo copy.

Neelam Mawaz appellant should have been questioned under section 342, Cr.P.C. that she had purchased Nissan Patrol Jeep with the ransom money but no such question was put to her. In this view of the matter it does not staid connected with the alleged crime.

Sh. Zahoor Ahmed (P.W.12) car clearing agent was unable to prove that it was received by him on 18-5-1990 from Karachi and that its delivery was made to the nominee of Javed Mawaz appellant. His statement is evasive and uncertain. He failed to disclose as to who had booked it from Karachi or who paid its price? Even he failed to state what commission did he charge for its clearance and from whom? He even failed to mention the particulars of the party despatching it from Karachi.

37. The P.Ws. examined by the prosecution have trade contradictory, delayed and improved statements at the trial. Important details which they furnished in their statements at the trial, are missing from the statements made by them before the Police. As already stated above, Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. named four unknown young men as the culprits in his statement Exh.DT before the Police dated 9-6-1990, but in the statement Ex.DU he introduced seven accused. In his first statement he mentioned one car having been used in the occurrence but in the latter statement he stated that two cars were used in his abduction. When asked about this discrepancy he stated that he could not give any reason for non-mentioning of the other car and its occupants, in his statement dated 9-6-1990. There is no mention of any farm or house by Sh. Aftab Ahmed P.W. in his statement dated 9-6-1990. The P.Ws. have made material improvements upon their statements before the Police while recording their statements at the trial, and modified the initial story. Such witnesses are not considered reliable and it is highly unsafe to act upon their testimony without corroboration.

38. The testimony of Agha Zawar Hussain P. W.6 about the abduction of Sh. Aftab Ahmed does not inspire confidence. He is a chance-witness and the reason given by him about his presence near Liberty Park is not appealing. According to him at about 6-00 a.m. he was on his way to Firdaus Market in connection with some Real Estate Business when he witnessed the occurrence. The timing of his visit to Gulberg was quite unusual and unexpected. Property dealers normally do not operate at 6-00 a.m. The circumstances in which he came forward as an eye-witness are extremely doubtful. He did not tell any-body about the incident from 22-4-1990 till 11-8-1990. According to him he appeared before S.I. Muhammad Feroze of his own for making his statement. Muhammad Feroze, S.I. says that God Almighty had sent him to him. There is absolutely no corroboration of his statement. Since the disappearance of Sh. Aftab Ahmad was widely reported in the press, he could have made a telephonic call to the Police or written an anonymous letter disclosing the names of the abductors. For these reasons it is difficult to accept his testimony.

39. The evidence of Ulfat Hussain P.W. servant of Usama Tariq also does not inspire confidence. He did not 'state before the Police or the Court that he previously knew any of the accused nor does he mention any previous visit of Hussaini accused to that farm. He also kept quiet for about 4 months.. The material on record shows that he was detained by the Police for some time. Thus, there is a possibility that he might have been coerced by the police to make the said statement.

40. The evidence of Usama Tariq, P. W. 4 owner of the farm house is also not convincing. Sh. Aftab Ahrpad, P.W. admits close neighbourly relations with him: He did not previously know any of the accused who had allegedly used his farm/house with his permission. He remained quiet about the detention of the abductee at his farm for about four months despite his good relations with him and the wide publicity given by the press to his abduction. He made his first ever statement before the police on 28-8-1990 and admitted that till that date he did not mention the incident to anybody. Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellant's alleged contact with him on 21-4-1990 does not stand proved. According to him he had seen Javed Mawaz and Hussaini appellants at the farm/house on 23-4-1990 but he did not see the abductee there. Even if the presence of these two accused at this farm/house on 23-4-1990 is believed still it does not connect them with the abduction.

41. The role of Muhammad Feroze. S.I. P.W.18 appears to be highly dubious. According to him, the investigation of the case was transferred to him on 10-8-1990 and on the very next day all the P.Ws. voluntarily appeared before him and named the accused. He stated that he did not make any efforts to find out the witnesses but God Almighty sent all of them. It is established from record that complaints and writ petitions were filed against him for the dishonest investigation made by him. The statement which the P. Ws. made before him were at variance in material particulars with the statements earlier made by them before the other Investigating Officers.

42 ` 'The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of Sh. Aftab Ahmad P.W. because of his high position is devoid of any legal substance because economic or social status of a witness cannot be made as touchstone for his credibility. His next argument is that abscondence of the accused after the occurrence is a strong piece of evidence against them. No doubt abscondence can be treated as a supporting circumstance to other evidence which in itself is strong enough to sustain conviction for the crime charged but such conduct by itself bas never the effect of remedying the defects in the other evidence led by the prosecution to show their participation in the crime. It was held in Mangio v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 243) that no inference one way or the other can he drawn from tht fact of abscondence, a person who is wanted by the Police may abscond if he is innocent to avoid arrest and harassment.

43. Yet another argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the complainant that under the law a presumption can he drawn against the accusedfrom their conduct, of their participation in the offence of abduction. This contention too is not legally sustainable, for: onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case and never shifts on the accused to prove their innocence.

44. Learned trial Court has based its judgment on suspicion and conjectures which cannot take place of proof. It is well-settled that suspicion however l strong, cannot take place of proof.

45. For the reason discussed above, it would be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on the witnesses examined by the prosecution arid it has failed to bring home guilt to the accused. Consequently, we accept the appeals, set aside their convictions and sentences and acquit them of the charges. The appellants who are in custody, shall be released forthwith provided they are not required to be detained in any other case.

46. Neelam Mawaz appellant is discharged from the bail bonds and so are Muhammad Hassan and Manzoor Hussain.

47. Since Pajero and Nissan Patrol vehicles do not stand connected with the offence and have been claimed by Javed Mawaz appellant and his wife Neelam Mawaz, these be returned to them. The currency notes amounting to Rs. one law be also returned to Javed Mawaz appellant for not being proved to be connected with the crime in question. Likewise, cash amounting to Rs.80,000 and household articles P.5 to P.51 be returned to Malik Arshad Ahrnad D.W-I brother of Muhammad Hussain alias Hussaini appellant for not being proved to be connected with the crime.

N.H.Q./M-1981/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals accepted.