IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 27.05.2015 passed by 
the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl.A. No.158/2009) 
 
 
Muhammad Kamran 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For thePetitioner(s): 
Ch. Muhammad Rafique Jathol, 
ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
30.09.2019. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Hamza 
Shahzad, 11, went missing along with his friend Hassan, 12, 
at 4:00 p.m. on 4.5.2006 from his house located within the 
precincts of Police Station City Satellite Town Sargodha; they 
were searched by the family without recourse to law, however, 
after receipt of an anonymous call on the following day at 
3:00 p.m, his father Iftikhar Ahmad (PW-9) laid information 
with the police. The anonymous caller, without raising 
demand, assured the complainant children’s safe conduct, 
however, subsequently he demanded ransom, finally settled 
as Rs.20,00,000/- paid by the complainant at the designated 
venue, situated within the area of Dera Ismail Khan on 
Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2019 
2
11.5.2006; it was received by two persons with muffled faces 
riding a car soon whereafter the children were brought at the 
scene by an unknown person. The accused surprisingly 
returned a sum of Rs.31000/- to the complainant. Despite 
registration of a criminal case and return of abductees, the 
complainant opted to stay silent as late as till 21.8.2008 
when he through a supplementary statement named the 
appellant alongside three others as the culprits; Waqar, 
Shahzad and Umair, named as privies to the transaction, 
were, however, let off by the police whereas the appellant was 
formally arrested on 01.9.2008; he was identified by the PWs 
in a test identification parade, held under magisterial 
supervision on 13.09.2008. Pursuant to disclosures, the 
appellant got recovered the car used in the occurrence, a  
.30-caliber pistol and a sum of Rs.700,000/-, secured vide 
inventories; he was alone to claim trial before the learned 
Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha who returned 
him a guilty verdict vide judgment dated  16.01.2009; 
convicted under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860 as well as section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, 
he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on both heads with 
concurrent commutation, pre-trial period inclusive with 
forfeiture of his property, upheld by the High Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 27.05.2015, vires whereof, are 
being assailed through leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
prosecution 
story, 
inherently 
flawed, 
fails 
to 
inspire 
confidence and as such there was no occasion for the High 
Court to maintain the conviction; that complainant’s silence 
despite registration of a case for an inordinate period, 
exceeding two years is a circumstance most intriguing with 
no explanation whatsoever; that non association of police 
despite knowledge and opportunity during the alleged delivery 
Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2019 
3
of ransom amount is yet another aspect clamouring 
explanation. 
Rejection 
of 
appellant’s 
supplementary 
statement qua three out of four nominated accused 
demolished the entire case, concluded the learned counsel. 
The learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment 
by arguing that the complainant had no axe to grind against 
the appellant, hounded by a criminal history. It is argued that 
since the appellant was arrested after having been found in 
custody in some other case, there was no occasion for the 
complainant to furnish information with the police. Regarding 
non association of the police, the learned Law Officer cited 
safety of the children as paramount consideration to outweigh 
legal formalities. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Though it is rather hard to contemplate a false 
accusation of abduction, bracketing one’s own kith and kin, 
nonetheless, appellant’s belated nomination as the central 
figure in the episode warrants serious consideration for 
reasons more than one. The witnesses are discrepant on 
fundamental issues of demand of ransom and the manner 
whereby it was paid to the appellant. According to the 
complainant (PW-9), the captor asked for a sum of rupees 4 
crore whereas according to Hassan Javed abductee (PW-7) the 
demanded amount was rupees 20 lac; the latter is supported 
by Hamza Shahzad (PW-8), no other than complainant’s son 
who endured captivity alongside the said witness. Even if the 
discrepancy is viewed as too trivial to cast bearing on the 
inherent fate of the case, still absence of Hassan Javed’s 
family from the scene is mindboggling; equally devastated by 
the disappearance of their child, none approached the police 
or joined the complainant in his pursuit for recovery of the 
children. Absence of call data, otherwise technically available, 
to confirm alleged conversation from appellant’s cell phone to 
Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2019 
4
a landline PTCL number, subscribed by the complainant,  
a valuable piece of evidence to establish the alleged 
communication, is a missing link with obvious consequences. 
The genesis of supplementary statement is also fraught with 
doubts. According to the complainant, in his belated 
disclosure, he had nominated the appellant being the 
principal 
culprit, 
however, 
when 
confronted 
with 
supplementary 
statement 
Ex.DD, 
his 
name 
was 
conspicuously missing therein. Appellant’s nomination by one 
of the abductees, namely, Hassan Javed (PW-7) in his 
statement Ex.DC, purportedly recorded on 8.9.2008 met the 
same embarrassment. Complainant’s choice to let off three 
co-accused, initially nominated by him in his supplementary 
statement, is a last straw. To synchronize mutually 
destructive positions, taken after an appalling delay, to rescue 
the charge, resting on a moral paradigm, inherently lacking 
evidentiary certainty on appellant’s guilt, is an option beyond 
juridical possibility. It would be grievously unsafe to maintain 
the conviction. Criminal Appeal is allowed; impugned 
judgment dated 27.05.2015 is set aside; the appellant is 
acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not 
required to be detained in any other case.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
30thSeptember,2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-