RUSTAM Versus State
This criminal appeal arises from a case where the appellant Rustam and co-accused Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din were tried for abduction for ransom under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The trial court convicted them, but upon appeal, the High Court maintained Rustam's conviction while acquitting Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din. Rustam appealed to the Supreme Court, which subsequently issued a show-cause notice to the acquitted co-accused regarding their acquittal. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused by the High Court warranted interference and setting aside after a significant lapse of time and in the absence of an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence against the acquitted co-accused was deficient, the recovery of cash was inconsequential, and no appeal against acquittal had been filed by the State or complainant for about twelve years. Consequently, the Supreme Court discharged the notice issued to the acquitted co-accused, upholding the principle that weak evidence and delayed interference do not justify setting aside an acquittal.
- Whether an acquittal by the High Court should be set aside when the prosecution evidence is deficient?
- Can a notice for enhancement or setting aside of acquittal be discharged after a long lapse of time when no appeal against acquittal was filed by the State or complainant?
- Is recovery of cash legally consequential when it is not connected with the alleged offence?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7(e), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 344, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Rustam appellant and some others had allegedly abducted one Syed Raza Abbas Zaidi on 30.08.2003 for the purpose of extracting ransom and for commission of the said offence they were booked in case FIR No. 226 registered at Police Station Darakhshan, District Clifton Town, Karachi on 31.08.2003 in respect of an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. After a regular trial Rustam appellant and his two co-convicts namely Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din were convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 365-A, P.P.C. besides having been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 344, P.P.C. Rustam appellant and his two co-convicts assailed their convictions and sentences before the High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by Rustam and upheld his convictions and sentences except his sentence of death which was reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life whereas Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din co-convicts were acquitted by the High Court. Rustam appellant challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through Jail Petition No.299 of 2005 wherein leave to appeal had been granted by this Court on 17.10.2006. The record shows that on 14.06.2010 when the present appeal came up for hearing a learned Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notice to the acquitted co-accused namely Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din requiring them to show cause as to why their acquittal might not be set aside and as to why they might not also be convicted and sentenced for the relevant offences. The record further shows that on 07.03.2017 the main appeal was dismissed to the extent of Rustam appellant as he had not pressed the same because by then he had already served out his sentences and had since been released from the jail. Now the present appeal has been taken up by this Court to the extent of Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused who had been acquitted by the High Court but had been issued a notice by this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
3. The record shows that Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused were not the persons who had abducted the alleged abductee. The record also confirms the fact that the alleged abductee had not been recovered from the custody of Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused. According to the prosecution the said accused persons were merely present outside a car at a public place with others at the time the payment of ransom was made. The witness produced by the prosecution regarding payment of ransom was Irfan (PW5) but after recording cogent reasons the High Court had discarded the statement of Irfan (FW5). The alleged recovery of some cash from Asif Hussain accused was legally inconsequential because the recovered cash never stood connected with the alleged offences. In these circumstances the High Court had decided to extend the benefit of doubt to Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused and they were, thus, acquitted of the charge.
4. The criminal case in hand had originated in the year 2003 and Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused were acquitted by the High Court in the year 2005. We note that no appeal against their acquittal had been filed before this Court either by the State or by the complainant party. About 12 years have already passed since the said accused persons' acquittal. The evidence brought on the record by the prosecution against the said accused persons was deficient and, thus, no useful purpose is likely to be served by persisting with the notice issued by this Court against their acquittal.
5. For what has been discussed above the notice issued by this Court to Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din accused vis-a-vis their acquittal by the High Court is discharged and the bail bonds and sureties furnished by them are also discharged.
MWA/R-12/SC Order accordingly.