ZULFIQAR Versus State
This jail petition was directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with forfeiture of properties under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner, along with co-accused, abducted a doctor at gunpoint, held him in captivity in a forest, and released him after receiving a ransom of Rs. 7,00,000. The petitioner pleaded false implication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the evidence, noting that the abductee unequivocally identified the petitioner and testified to the abduction and ransom payment, which was corroborated by other witnesses and a written ransom note. The Court held that the ingredients of Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were fully attracted and that there was no lacuna in the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the testimony of an abductee, corroborated by eye-witnesses and documentary evidence of a ransom note, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the release of an abductee only after the payment of a specified sum satisfy the statutory ingredients of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- This jail petition is directed against judgment, dated 27-10-2004 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2003 filed by petitioner was dismissed, the conviction and sentence under section 365-A, P.P.C. to ,imprisonment for life with forfeiture of properties awarded by the trial Court was maintained.
2. Brief facts as per case of prosecution are that abductee Dr. Imdad Hussain Kazi had a private clinic at Nao Goth Shikarpur Road. On 2-11-1993 at about 8-00 he left his clinic and proceeded towards his house when suddenly four persons came there. Two of them were armed with pistol while others were empty-handed. On pistol point they stopped the victim and controlled the car. On hue and cry of victim P.W. Aijaz Hussain and Iqbal Ahmed attracted to the place of occurrence and saw the incident. Thereafter, culprits abducted victim and took him in the forest. They stayed in the forest for 2 days and on the 4th day they asked victim to write a chit to his son instructing him to pay Rs.10,00,000 and to meet with Pir Ali Shah. After eleven days victim was released by petitioner after receipt of ransom of Rs.7,00,000.
3. After usual investigation petitioner along with accused Shaman Shah, Liaqat, Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Ali were sent up to face trial before trial Court. Accused Ghulam Ali and Shaman Shah absconded as such they were declared absconder and their trial was separated.
4. Dr. Imdad Kazi (P.W.2) and Aijaz Hussain Kazi (P.W.3) identified petitioner Zulfiqar Mako, accused Shaman Shah, Liaqat and Ghulam Ali in the identification test.
5. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined 10 witnesses in all.
6. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. petitioner denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. He neither opted to examine himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in his defence.
7. On conclusion of trial petitioner and co-accused Liaqat were convicted and sentenced as stated above whereas co-convict Ghulam Hussain was acquitted.
8. On appeal accused Liaqat was acquitted whereas conviction and sentence of petitioner was maintained by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment.
9. We have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh at length and gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
10. In this case prosecution has been able to bring on record testimony of abductee Imdad Hussain who in unequivocal terms has stated that he was abducted/kidnapped by the petitioner and others and was kept in captivity for 11 days whereafter was released after payment of ransom amounting to Rs.7,00,000. In evidence the chit written by abductee to his son demanding ransom was also brought on record and got exhibited. Irrespective of above statement of abductee, complainant Muhammad Ali Qureshi Aijaz Hussain and Iqbal Ahmed have corroborated commission of the offence both on the point of abduction and as well as demand of ransom amount. From the evidence adduced on record ingredients of section 365-A, P.P.C. are fully attracted in this case, as such, we do not find any lacuna in the impugned judgment, which is accordingly maintained. The petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
S.M.B./Z-14/SC Petition dismissed.