MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State

MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2017, passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi, whereby in case FIR No. 292, dated 13.09.2015, registered under section 365-A, P.P.C., at Police Station Murree, District Rawalpindi, Muhammad Riaz (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under section 365-A, P.P.C.--- Imprisonment for life, along with forfeiture of property.

Under Section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Imprisonment for life.

Under Section 7(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Forfeiture of property.

It was directed that the above mentioned sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., would also be available to the appellant.

2. The above mentioned FIR (Ex.PA/1), was got lodged, by Ch. Muhammad Basharat (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) regarding abduction of his grandson namely Muhammad Danish (PW-9), for ransom.

3. The appellant being involved in the case mentioned above, was challaned to the court. The learned trial court had framed the charge against the appellant on 18.11.2015, which was denied and trial was claimed. Hence the prosecution witnesses namely Saeed Mehmood SI, Muhammad Basharat complainant, Muhammad Safeer, Muhammad Ziafat, Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Tauqir Head Constable, Muhammad Mumtaz SI, Rafaqat Hussain Inspector and Muhammad Danish, were summoned and recorded as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9, respectively. On completion of the prosecution evidence and closure of the case, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., during which the questions arising out of the prosecution evidence were put to him, but he had denied almost all such questions, while pleading his innocence and false involvement in the case. At that time, he had opted to produce evidence in his defence, but not to make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Later on, he refused to produce evidence in his defence. Finally, the impugned judgment was passed, in the above mentioned terms. Consequently, the appeal in hand.

4. Admittedly, in the matter, no ransom was paid. The prosecution stance was that the ransom was claimed through telephone, but no data or the proceedings/ conversation of the said demand was recorded. In this way, the prosecution stance, for demand of ransom was not proved. If any case law in this regard is needed, reference may be made to the case titled "Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others" reported as 2016 SCMR 274.

5. The above mentioned fact has made the applicability of section 365-A, P.P.C., and sections 7(2)/7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, doubtful. In this way, conviction of the appellant for the said charges could not be termed as justified. However, not only abduction of the above named PW-9, by the appellant has been proved and established, but the said PW was also recovered from his possession. This fact has made the appellant liable to treatment under section 365, P.P.C.

6. Resultantly, conviction of the appellant is altered to section 365, P.P.C. and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years, along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, failing which he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

7. With the above said modification/ alteration, the appeal in hand is dismissed.

SA/M-33/L Appeal dismissed.