IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.562-
P/2015)  
 
 
 
Inhaf Ullah 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The State & another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Astaghfarullah, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.04.2021. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Atique, 6/7, was 
playing outside his house, located within the precincts of Police Station 
Bhana Marri, Peshawar on 16.10.2014; at 4:00 p.m, he took a bottle of 
water from his house to serve a passerby whereafter he vanished from the 
scene; according to the prosecution, he was whisked away in an alto car; 
the incident was reported same day by his brother Muhammad Aamir 
(PW-3); he also informed his father who was in China on a business trip 
and rushed back to join search for the child; after 3/4 days of the 
occurrence, an unknown person delivered fruit in two shopping bags to 
the complainant, purportedly sent by his father’s friend Tariq;  the fruit 
carried a chit bearing a cell phone number and a message about the 
captivity of the child with the dispatcher. The complainant handed over 
the chit to his father Umar Khan (PW-2). The family contacted the captors 
on phone who demanded Rs.2 crore as ransom, finally settled as 
Rs.800,000/-, paid at the designated place in lieu of abductee’s release on 
22.10.2014. 
As 
the 
investigation 
progressed, 
Inhafullah, 
Shahid, 
Musharaf Khan, Alif Khan, Shahzad Gul, Atlas alias Aslat and Asad Ullah 
were taken on board as accused; Inhaafullah petitioner, in response to a 
court question, was identified by Umar Khan (PW-2) as recipient of the 
Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 
 
2
ransom. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 21.09.2015 
proceeded to convict all the accused under section 365-A of the Pakistan 
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life; on appeal, 
the Peshawar High Court, barring the petitioner, acquitted all the accused 
from the charge vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2010, vires whereof, 
are being assailed on a variety of grounds. It is argued that neither the 
complainant nor his father named or identified the petitioner in their 
examination-in-chief and it was in pursuance to a question prompted by 
the Court that Umar Khan (PW-2) reluctantly pointed his finger upon the 
petitioner, for the first time in the Court; according to the learned counsel, 
there was no occasion for the learned Judge to put Court question to a 
witness undergoing examination-in-chief to the detriment of the 
petitioner; that a different vehicle other than the one used in the 
occurrence was recovered, that too, upon the disclosure of a co-accused, 
since acquitted, and, thus, mere recovery of ransom amount statedly 
upon petitioner’s disclosure without any identification mark is hardly 
sufficient to sustain the charge. Acquittal of six out of seven co-accused 
brought the entire edifice to the ground, concluded the learned counsel. 
The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused.  
3. 
 
Abduction of a small child for ransom is a most serious offence 
and it is hard to expect that a family would come up with a fake script, 
nonetheless, in the present case, we have noted glaring flaws and 
discrepancies that cannot be possibly ignored on a perceptional paradigm. 
According to the complainant, the incident had occurred on 16.10.2014 
and reported same day in the absence of his father, present in China 
looking after some trade assignment, however, according to the latter, 
upon receipt of information, he rushed back and when the incident was 
reported on 19.10.2014. The discrepancy may be viewed as human error 
inasmuch as according to the record, the First Information Report was 
recorded on 16.10.2014, nonetheless, arrival of a massage demanding 
ransom through an unknown person categorically claiming to have been 
dispatched by one Tariq without any reaction or response, in those testing 
hours, fails to inspire confidence. Similarly, without intervention of police, 
payment of ransom to the petitioner and immediate release of the child 
are circumstances no less intriguing either. No test identification parade 
was carried out to qualify the standard of proof within the contemplation 
of Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Similarly, petitioner’s 
identification, with handcuffs in the dock, through intervention of the 
Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 
 
3
Presiding Judge fails to commend our approval. The Court bears no 
responsibility either for the prosecution or the defence; it must maintain 
its neutrality to decide a case on the strength of evidence alone, 
essentially to be adduced by the prosecution itself to drive home the 
charge. No doubt, the trial Court is vested with ample authority to put 
questions to the witness, however, the power of this amplitude must be 
exercised with caution and circumspection, solely in aid of justice without 
disturbing equality in the scales; in the present case, incessant 
interventions by the trial Judge has grievously undermined testimony of a 
witness, otherwise mute and reticent on a fundamental detail of the case. 
Acquittal of six out of seven accused, though assigned different roles, 
nonetheless, equally blamed to have aided the crime, leaves nothing in the 
field. It would be unsafe to maintain the conviction Criminal petition is 
converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment is set aside; the 
appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not 
required to be detained by law.   
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th April, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-