WALI MUHAMMAD S/O LAL JURIO (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

lf€- r-ant $ry1 Aylrd- t f"1b \'ff LA d^'.fl a

I

tlZ IN THE TilGfi GOURT O"F\SIND@CHI Spl. Criminal Anti-Terrorism App*uJf9:O3 of 2013 Conlirmation Case No'10 of 2016 Presqnt:

M!. Iustice Nailnatul,lqh PhulPolo . l M!. I ustffiod Kotim Khan Agha f Apperlant: H"[#]:ffi:3f'["HJ,""?#J;;.il1ff"Hffi Feroz, Advocate'

Respondenil The state through Farman Ali Kanasro' Additional Prosecutor General Sindh' Date of hearing: 29.03.20L9.

Date of Judgment: 05.04.2019.

I UDG ME NT

Appellant Wali Muhammad

M

Anti-Terrorism court, Mirpurkhas Slo. Lal J urio was tried by rearned Judge out of Crime No'102/2011 tJ/s' 365-A' in Special Case No.01 of 11\Zarising of Anti-Terrorism Act' 1997 registered 506(2), 34 PPC read with section /7 was at Taluka MirPurkhas vide judgment dated 24'12'201?' and the appellant + of Irfan Usman and Jan convicted for the kidna pping for ransom Act, 1gg7 and sentenced to death Muhammad' U/s 7(e) of Anti-T errorism conJirmation bY this court, with further order to forfeit his subject to in favour of Government (the impugned movable and immovable ProPerties judgment).

?.Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthatonl3.l0.20llatl]".00a.m'onelrfan was going to inspect his usman along with his driver Jan Muhammad Khatyan in his land situated near vi[age Haii wali Muhammad agricurturar Chand Morio his prado Ieep No.BD-1768. On the way adjacent to Dargah armed with iuep was stopped by a white corolla car from which four Persons his i*ep. Irfan usman tried to come Kalashnikovs came out and surrounded culprits who forced Irfan Usman out from his jeep which was resisted by the him rifle butt injury in the face' to re-occupy his seat in his i*"P after causing driver of the jeep. This They arso caused injuries to Jan Muhammad. the of Irfan usman who came on incident was witnessed by Nauman Ali cousin

It3 the ieep and blind- a motor cycle from Mirpurkhas. The culprits occupied minutes iourney they folded Irfan usman and Jan Muhammad. After 20 Muhammad sit in abandoned the jeep and made Irfan Usman and Jan another car and after about 4/5 hours journey they stopped the car at and Jan Muhammad in a unknown place where they confined Irfan usman ransom money from {i room for about 45 days. The culprits demanded They also shifted lrfan usman Muhammad usman father of Irfan usman. and ]an Muhammad from place to place. After total detention of about 90 Muhammad free telling them days, the kidnaPPers set Irfan Usman and Jan pir pagara had expired by leaving them that this was because their Murshid went away' After on the road and gave them ruPees one thousand and came to know that they opening their eyes Irfan Usman and Jan Muhammad Thereafter lrfan usman were reft on a road near sindh university Jamshoro. and Jan Muhammad came to their house' at Police station Taluka

3.FIR of the incident had already been lodged usman on 16-11-2011. The Mirpurkhas by Abdullah Khan uncre of Irfan Muhammad syed was arrested on 0s.4.2012 and put appelrant/ accused wali identified by abductees Irfan to identification parade where he was correctly Usman and ]an Muhammad and PW2 Nauman Ali'

+ officer

4.After completing the usual investigation, the Investigation the challan against the appellant/ accused for trial in accordance submitted 11 witnesses and with law. To prove its case, the prosecution examined items. The accused recorded his exhibited numerous documents and other denied the allegations against him statement under s.342 cr.pc whereby he andclaimedthathehadbeenfalselyimplicatedinthisCaSebytheeye 'who had shown him to the eye witnesses on the pressure of the police that he had been taken into witnesses before the identification parade and he was tortured and told to admit i*egar porice custody on 07-02 -zlrzwhere He did not give evidence his guilt to the offense which he refused to do' who corroborated under oath but did call both his sons as defense witnesses police where he and his his story about being arrested from his house by the sons were living on 07-02-z0rz. Dw 1 being his son Lal Jurrio also

corroborated the accused statement of being subject to police torture and in being pressurized to admit his guilt as he was also kept with his father illegal detention by the police and also saw his father being shown to the eye

Itq

witnesses whilst in illegal detention. Dw 2 the accused's other son Noor

Mohammed shah who was not taken by the police also gave evidence that Hyderabad High Court about his on the next day he filed a petition in the father,s and brother,s ilregal detention by the porice and later filed an sessions court. Dw 3 Fareed Ahmed apprication under s.491 Cr.pc before the the porice come to the accused's t also gave evidence that he did not see came and made various otaque on 08-04-2012 when they allegedly on record the trial court handed recoveries. After considering the evidence as mentioned earlier in this down the conviction and sentence to the accused by the appellant' judgment. Hence this appeal against conviction 5.Thefactsofthecaseaswellasevidenceproducedbeforethetrial judgment dated 24'12;2012 Court find an elaborate mention in the impugned passed by the trial court and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced repetition' here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary 6.Learnedadvocateforappellantcontendedthattheappellantis innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case; that the eye witness evidence in respect of his abduction and identification was not frust worthy not be safely relied upon; that in and confidence inspiring and as such courd there was an inordinate and + fact no such abduction had taken place; that gave the opportunity fonf'.the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which case against the accused; that the comprainant and the police to concoct the with the law; that there was identification parade was not held in accordance no evidence of any ransom demand and thus for one and/or all the above set aside and the accused be reasons the impugned judgment should be acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of the doubt to him. In the cases of Muhammad support of his contentions he placed reliance on Fazal v. The state (1983 SCMR 1), Asif Hussain v' The state (2005 MLD 98), Hatim Ali sheikh v' The :1gl:1),Rahat Ali v. The state (2001 P. Cr.L.J. (1993 P. cr'L'J' state (pLD rgg4Karachi 41.4), umar Farooq v. The state 7Ig),Kamil Zaman v. The state (1999 P. Cr.L.J . 15461, Muhammad Riaz v' (PLD 1976 Supreme The state (1988 MLD 38), Abdul sattar v. The state Muhammad razeem and others v. The state and others court 4041, yLR 1,s42), Ghulam Abbas v. The state (2002 yLR t7sq) and sher Dil alias sher Gul and another v. The state (1973 P. cr.L.J. 802)'

J

lqf learned Additional

7.on the other hand, Mr. Farman Ali Kanasro' - judgment' He contended prosecutor General fully supported the impugned the eye witness evidence was reliable that it was a day time incident; that that there sufficient to convict the accused; and confidence inspiring and was the FIR based on the particular facts was no untoward deray in registering the eye witness testimony was -\ and circumstances of the case; that 222 Rifre, cassette and photo's which had corroborated by the recovery of the that the accused; that other witnesses proved been found on the pointation of was arrested on sPy a ransom demand wa5 made; that the accused and had not been illegally detained inJormation whilst riding in a rickshaw there were some defects in the in police custody. He conceded that material and despite such minor identification parade but these were not defects the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a judgment should be upheld and the reasonable doubt and the impugned he placed reliance on appeal dismissed. In support of his contentions (PLD 2007 SC 71), Zakir Khan and Ghulam Hussain soomro v. The state Akbar v. The state (1998 others v. The state (1gg5 scMR llgl),Muhammad v. The state (2017 YLR 2052), Khan scMR 253g), Rashid Asram and another waris v. The state (2003 YLR Ali v. The state (rgggMLD z411)and Ghuram + for the parties' B. we have heard the arguments of the learned counsel been read out by the appellant' gone through the entire evidence which has assistance and have considered and the impugned judgment with their able at the bar' the relevant law including the case law cited From the evidence in our view it seenrs that the case of the

on 13-10-2011 at about 11.30 prosecution is that Irfan usman was kidnapped and other am along with his driver Ian Muhammed by the accused abscond,ing co-accused who detained them against there will and demanded The abductees a ransom for their safe return from Irfan lJsman's father. after about 90 howevef,were later released although no ransom was paid Noman Ali identified the days in captivity who later arong with eye witness accused as one of the person's who kidnapped the abductees at an magistrate. The prosecution identification parade carried out by the iudicial of the accused of case was further borstered by the recovery on the pointation

tsl Itk the a hidden and bur ied,ZL|-Rifle, 33 photographs and cassettes concerning

abductees.

we consider that the main issues

10.In evaluating the evidence on record before us are;

(a)Whether the abductees (Irfan and Jan Muhammed) were kidnaPped and if so

(b)Whether.theappellantwasoneofthekidnappersespecially parade was held in keeping in view whether his identification accordance with law and if so

(c)Whether any ransom demand was made'

Turningtotheissueofthekidnappingoftheabductees.

(a)PW 3

11.In this respect the prosecution has relied on 3 eye witnesses 4 Muhammed another Irfan Usman one of the abductees and (b) PW Jan pw's who narrated the incident abductee and (c) pw 2 Noman Ali. The other oftheabductiongivehearsayevidencewhichisinadmissibleinlaw time and

12.All these eye witnesses corroborate each other as to the date' and PW 4 ]an Muhammed at manner of the kidnapping of PW 3lrfan Usman that pw Noman Ali is + about 11.30 am on 13-10-2011. we note however, is also a chance witness whose related to abductee pw 3 Irfan usman and presence at the time of the incident has not been adequately explained left him alone and did not especially as rather surprisingly the kidnappers his motorbike so that he could even take his motor bike key let alone disable police about the not give chase to the kidnappers oI quickly inform the kidnapping, nor did they demand his mobile phone which conduct on the part of the kidnappers does not particularly appeal to reason' It is also strange that instead of following the j"uP or reporting the matter house and told him immediately to the police he instead went to his uncle',s his evidence hardly about the incident. KeePing these factors in view we give we have only given any weight. Thus, with regard to the actual abduction weight to the evidence of the abductees

13.The evidence of the abductees concerning their kidnapping is in the recovered corroborated by the fact that human blood was discovered and that pw 3 Irfan usman had been hit by the rifle butt on his face i"ep

It-] the ieep in which the abductees were which led to his bleeding, the fact that - the that was found dumped, the fact that it seems to be undisputed driving 90 days and thus we do find on balance abductees were missing for about we use the words "on balance" because that the abductees were kidnapped. an unexplained delay of 30 days' we we note that the FIR was lodged after where initially a search is made for the + appreciate that in cases such as this the complainant is warned not to contact abducted person, panic sets in and dire consequences might follow, as in the porice by the kidnappers otherwise lodging the FIR however an unexplained this case, may cause some deray in based on the particular facts and delay of over 30 days as in this case to be rather an unreasonably long circumstances of this case does appear there dos not appear to be any evidence time especiarly as during this period threats against the of any ransom negotiations or continuing further on balance we find that the prosecution abductees vis a vis their safety. Thus, location has proved that the abductees were kidnapped at the time, date and as alleged.

in our view is whether the accused u/as The next issue and most significan_t abductees' actually one of the kidnappers of the weight to the evidence of 1,4. we have already decided to give hardly any + chance eye witness pw 2 Noman so the question arises whether the accused has been correctly identified by the abductees'

light kidnapping

18.According to both abductees at the time of the day therewere5kidnapPerswhowerecarryingKalashnikov,swhosefaceswere opened. Thus, there was a possibility that both the abductees could have This however, need.s to be considered Seen and later recogn ized'the accused.

taking into account the fact that abductees admittedly did not know the is not known how far the accused was accused before this incidenU that it and with other kidnappers the from the abductees at the time of the incident saw the accused at the time of question arises as for how long the abductees were kept blind folded the abduction and admittedly the abductees before they were released.

throughout the rest of their duration in captivity abductees in their s'161 Importantly, after their release neither of the features or description of the statements (or pw 2 Noman) have given any 't' accused

ar rq(

that this took place 1,6. As for the identiJication parade it is note worthy was not remanded in judicial custody during the period when the accused police had every chance of showing but was in police custody and thus the identification parade as indeed is the accused to the abductees prior to the the accused in his s.342 Cr.PC statement' one of the defenses put forward by the identification parade was The learned ApG has arready conceded that not conducted in accordance with the law. we have also noted additional magistrate did not ask how long defects in the identification parade (a) the the magistrate did not note any the accused had been in police custody, (b) occupations and addresses of injuries on the abductees (c) CNIC Numbers, The magistrate even noted in the dummies were not taken by the magistrate' he had been shown to the Pw's his report that the accused had claimed that defense case. Thus, keeping who identified him which is consistent with his that the identification parade all these factors in view we are of the opinion prove that he was one of the of the accused cannot be safely relied uPon to accused before the trial court was kidnappers. Even the identification of the reliance is placed on order not safe to maintain'his conviction. In this respect criminal of the supreme court dated zz-02-zorg (unreported) Appeal No'259 of Miscelaneous Application No.1g3 of 2019 in criminal 201g. Notice in compriance with the order dated ].z.}z.zolg passed in t Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2018 to Mr' Kanwar Anwaar Ali' Special dereliction of duty and lack of sufficient ]udicial Magistrate on account of legat knowledge. This order in effect re-iterated and approved the parade to be safely guidelines that need to be followed for an identification yaqoob v state (1989 relied upon as raid down in the case of Muhammed P.Cr.LJ 222n

17.Even otherwise we do not consider that the prosecution has proved at the scene at the beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was present in his s'342 time of the kidnapping. The accused's case as set out in detail of the police from Cr.pc statement is that he was in unlawful confinement 07-02-12and during the time when he was allegedly arrested by the police case to the relevant PW's whilst riding in a rickshaw. He consistentry put his in his s.342 Cr.pC statement during cross examination. His defense as set out is supported by the evidence of his two sons who have also placed on record t court as to the wrongful applications moved to the High Court and sessions r

r1\

has not been able to conrinement of the accused which the prosecution case the accused was refute. Furthermore, according to the prosecution riding in a Rickshaw arrested by pw 1.1 IO |awaid Iqbal on 5-04-2012whilst however no statement along with 3-4 others on the basis of spy inlormation in the rickshaw at the time of any of the other 3-4 persons who were riding had their statements taken t when the accused was arrested from the rickshaw the Prosecution deprived nor were they made mashirs or PW's and thus accused was in the rickshaw as itself of the best evidence to show that the at the time of his arrest. Notably opposed to porice custody as a[eged by him and had been brought along the mashirs were related to the complainant was made mashir who with the arresting IO. No person from the local area to the place of arrest or at the place could have been collected either en route statement of the accused is set of arrest, For ease of reference the s.}4zCr.pC out below in material Part:

haue deposed against "Question No.9. Why the PWs you? , t .- ---) are deposing "An *n , Att the PWs are interested one and 'ogoiitt lqbal' me at the instance of PW 71. inspector lawaid anything else ta say?

QuestionNo.l.0. Haae you

Answer: sir I say that on 7.2.2012 it was about'l'2 o'clock *ianiglrt the dio, of my house was knock d. w rit -ot * N:r1 MohammadopenedthedoorandsawDsPYounisBalochof AamriPolicestation.Thesaidpolicefficial_pushedmyson SryO and Hajan Noor Mohammad, The said poili'e oficer' panhwar of police station sun and-Qaisar Panhwar police g:u,ord oy siii DSP alongwith other police officials who utere '*i,tlroui uniform enteied my hause' They all brolte a After that ,upirorA of'*y house and toik out case amount, shsh alias Baboo iily Torribiy tiok me and my son Lat luria Shahandbroughtbothofus"atpoligestations.unfromwltere ssP lamshoro they were broight both of us at tlrc office -of. ,:*:

where SSp Riaz" Soomro ind other police of Mypu!\ot tilro alias Baboo Shah brought mt and my son Lal luria Shah at Mirpuit*lror. Thereil"y cynfi"ed us in a quarter of police stationTalukaMirpurkh*To,"aboutaweekandtorturedme andmyson.rneyTurther'forcedustoadmitourguilt.,\o, we had abducted itw, 3 an'd 4 namely lrfon l-lsman and Jan Muhammad but we both refused. Aftr, that sSP Riaz disclosed to Soomro brought there persons whose names lnere us (ts lrfan l.ir*or, lan Mohammad and Noman and disclose

thnt we had abducted lrfon l-Isman and lan Mohammad in presence of Noman to which we replied that we had seen all 'the persons disclosed that lr three for the first time. These three I and *y son ,irrc not with tlu abductors, After that our

I

tel 2c<:

custody was handed. oaer to sHo lnayat eJi zy\da! of police

statioi Kot Ghulam Muhammad who confined both of us-iry a

priuate quarter, TtE said sHO two times called lrfln to us that l-lsmon, ian Mohammad and Noman and disclosed and Mohammad in we had abducted both lrfan lJsman Jan presenceofNomanbu"tl'Dedeclined,Eventhesethree perso1ts disclosed that I and my son Tlere not with the abductors, After that we had shifted to Digri P-ol-ice station i whereDsPMirAftabTalpurconfinedusfor20daysina. rootm who also ,it a lrfan l.)smnn, lan Muhammad and "to Notmfrn and forced us admit our guilt that we had abducted both lrfan lJ.sman and lan Mohammad in presence ,f Noman but we agaiy declined to admit the alleged g.u!lt; Aftab These three prrroni also disclosed before -?sP .Mir Talpurthatwewerenotinuolaedintheabductionoflrfan l-lsman and lan Mohammad. After that our custody was Adam under the handed to sanghar Police station Tando superuision ,i suo Yar Mohammad Rind who later on inaestigating- handed ouer our custody to PW 11 second officer lauraid lqbat chandio. Tfu said police offcer confined and later on us a,t police staiion Manglia and Head lamshoro confined us in a quartei at Sanghar. He also called these three persons and disclosed to them that I and my son were the riat culprits and to identify us in identification parade-

buttheyagnintoldthatlandmyso.nwere'.notthereal culpri;. 6n this PW 11 lawaid iqbat C.handio..threatened they will be them that in case if they rifused to identify us booked under sectiln zot ipc, Lastly he had stated that he will release my son lurial shah alias Baboo shah and they

Tfiauldidentifymeinidentificationparade.Lytyonatthe Noman Ali' unAuu p'r,,,ii' of police' PW 2' 3 and 4 namely lrfan lJsman and'lan Mohammad identified me during 1 the

identtfication. Tlu'police had not recouered iron chains' locks' cassettes f"* my- Ot??-ue.nor on nty photigraphs and 'id'o pointlation hc had recoaered 222 bore nfte' All.these articles .IfterefoisteduPonme,Ifurthersaythatlhad,notabducted to them nor I had both the abductees nor I hnd causediniuries that Muhammad contrn A them in my otaq. I furthir sny Slilt is my relatiue' H; is being Z**y!?r, and at his instance Aami Police hnd artested me.

PW 1'L inaestigating offi,e,|awaidlqbatChandioisresidentofDi.strictDadu,He hastermswithZamindarMuhammadshah,Th,ybothin collusion tuith esch other inaolaed me falsely in this case' I am innocent andPraY for iustice'

and identity 1g. The manner in which the police came to know the name According to the case of of the accused also seems to us to be rather doubtful. the prosecution pw 3 abductee Irfan usman states in his evidence at typed

P.3 as under in material Part;

1/, months I hade 80ne to

say that after about 1 I sehwan District lamshoro for affering Fateha nt the Mazar

Zal

ofHazratLatshahbazQalandar.Beforemyarriaalattlu ab!1t.2 Moro, when I reaclwd on il road at a distnnce of to fill the kilo meters from Sun town I stopped-*y aehicle petrol wheie a hotel was a_lso situated wlwre I saw frPersott to be Li iotorcycle was standing, I had identified him and my me one o! tte culprits whi !-od abducted driaer lan Muhammad' The said Percon proceedeil towardssuntown.Ifotlowedhimandsflwthatthe aifiacent to the I said person went in a house situateit enquired I"* rload'of the Mazar of G'M' Syed' l -then about the said three persons who were preient there Ferson they disclosed to me that it was Ali Muhammad son of Lal lurio Shah' After offe-ring-

Eateha at the ruizarcf tot shahbaz Qalandar

I

returned to my house at Mirputkhas' at Police On 25.3.2012 n Police Officer called tne wanted that he to Lines sanghar and disctoiia to me iquirg fi* me about the incident' I repeqte.d tle and f"'t!t!

snrne facts to him as stateit by me a.boae ac.cuseil Wali ilisclosed to him that I hait identified of Syn Muhammail son of Lal furto Shah rcsident who persott town District Taishoto to be the sf,tne The said Police 'Onirr* me ind lan Muhammad.

abducted had ,rmid"d my f"'ty': -statement and oitained my signafine ott it"' (bold added) Irfan usman he' by

19.Thus, according to the evidence ol abductee accused at a petrol pump and then followed chance, saw and recognized the then quite incredibry did not go { him home and found out his name and this identification of the person who straight to the police to tell them about and did nothing' Instead he had abducted him but instead went home waited for the police to call him on the off chance before giving this most crucial inlormation to the porice. Even in his further statement before the his identification of the accused porice having informed the porice about the manner in which he came again quite incredibly he does not relate across the accused in his further s.161 cr.pC statement as noted above' In to reason, logic or corrunonsense and our view such conduct does not appeal when considered in terms of the is in fact contrary to usuar human conduct crucial information which in our significance of this newry discovered most view castes severe doubt again on how the accused was identified' above riding with Interestingly, the accused is finally arrested, as mentioned 3-4 others in a rickshaw based on spy information when according to the simply been inlormation provided by abductee Irfan Usman he could have had found out and arrested by the police frorn his house which the abductee

I

t 111 LaZ

whole aspect of the case does not informed the porice about. In our view this ring true.

of the police to

20.other doubts also arise when we consider the failure the home of the accused where take the statement of any Person near allegedly the abductees were detained for many days and who might have I the people who were staying in the seen some unusual activity let alone accused,s otaque at the time when the Io inspected the same. The fact that otaque which were used to chain up the the Io found chains in the accused's to reason' logic or colrunon sense as abductees does not particularly appeal of these chains once the any potential kidnapper would have disposed otherwise they could have been left abductees had been released or even at the otaque whose statements there by the labourers who were working the doors of the otaque or even were not taken or even those who opened planted by the police keeping in view that on 08-04-2012 when wali

Muhammed allegedly took the police to his otaque his neighbour DW 3 Fareed Ahmed whose shop is situated in front of the otaque states in his or any police come to the otaque on evidence that he did not see the accused thatday.Itisalsoquitesurprisingthattheabd,ucteesrecognizedtheroom when according to them they had been blind folded the whole time that they { were in caPtivitY-

the pointation of the 21,. The fact that the Z11rtIlewas allegedly found on accused along with 33 photo,s and a number of cassettes we also consider to be inconsequential as no roznamcha entry was made before the accused left where they were going and the police station along with the police stating it cannot be ruled out what they intended to recover, In such circumstances accused by the police' In any that these recoveries were not foisted on the event the accused saw Kalashnikov's and not a 2?2 Rifle and none of the side. with regard to the photo,s or Cassettes ever reached the comprainants that despite keeping the photo's and the tapes it does not appeal to reason g0 days none of these photo's or tapes abductees in detention for almost they had kidnapped the were sent to the comprainant,s side as proof that Even otherwise no expert abductees in support of their ransom demand- made of the tapes and there is no evidence of safe recovery analysis has been f of these items. As for the alleged exffa judicial con-fession of the accused

given to the police while in police custody this is of no evidentiary value and ll 7

t 12l (a) Zo Z

at trial' That most of the mashirs in any event was retracted by the accused or are his employees and no serious are either related to the complainant the porice to associate any independent effort seems to have been made by despite this being a requirement ,d mashir even when they were available 5.103 Cr.PC. We also note that some of the PW's have given further under statements which in our view aPPear to be nothing but dishonest Cr'PC statements on which little improvements in their original 5'161 the star prosecution witnesses Pw 3 reliance can be praced. For instance jan Muhammed' Even in their abductee Irfan Usman and PW 4 abductee do not name the kidnappers' nor give s.164 Cr.PC statements the abductees accused was not arrested at the time any description of them and since the statements they were not subject when the abductees made their s.164 Cr.pc such are of little evidentiary to cross examination by the accused and as value.

22.Thus,whentheabovediscussionisconsid.eredweareofthefirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the view that the prosecution has not proved accused was one of the kidnappers who abducted Irfan usman and Jan A Muhammed'

2s.Havingmad.etheabovefindingtheaspectofwhetheranyransom but in any event by way of demand was made now becomes irrerevant that any specific ransom amount was completeness since there is no evidence ever d,emanded or paid; that the phone from which the ransom call was even the CDR of that phone was allegedly made was never recovered and the abductees by the not produced; that the reason for the release of without receiving any ransom kidnappers after about 90 days of detention have been identified by the when potentially some of the kidnappers could to reason' logic or cofiunonsense abductees also does not particularly appeal and thus we are also of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove was made by any of the beyond a reasonable doubt that a ransom demand kidnappers.

and keeping in

24.Thus, based on our above assessment of the evidence unable to prove t view the relevant law, since the prosecution has been was one of the kidnappers of the beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused aside, the accused is acquitted of the abductees the impugned judgment is set

triL rli

I I 13 ]

L*

C)?,

charge and the conrirmation reference is answered in the negative' The in any other custody case' accused shall be released if he is not required

25.The appeal is therefore allowed and disposed of in the above terms

the negative' with the confirmation reference being answered in

I

lu E

5,tr ' '.5-1 1

- IUDGE

Arif

V