IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal Nos.324 & 325 of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Lahore in Cr.A. No.962-J/2012) 
 
 
Shah Zaib & another   
(in Cr.A. 324/2021) 
Bilawal 
(in Cr.A. 325/2021) 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State 
(in both cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
For the Appellant(s): 
Barrister Salman Safdar, ASC  
 
(in Cr. A. 324/2021) 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC  
 
(in Cr. A. 325/2021) 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Akram Gondal, ASC 
 
Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
Date of Hearing: 
17.02.2022. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Bilawal son of 
Muhammad Boota, Shahzaib son of Muhammad Saeed and 
Shamshad Begum wife of Muhammad Saleem impugn, through 
leave of the Court, judgment dated 24.10.2017 by a learned Division 
Bench of the Lahore High Court Lahore whereby guilty verdict 
returned 
to 
them 
by 
the 
learned 
Judge 
Anti-Terrorism-II, 
Gujranwala was upheld albeit with minor modification.  
2. 
 
According to the prosecution, set up on the complaint of 
Irfan Saeed (PW-6), his brother Farhan Saeed (PW-7) left home for 
his factory in a car on 24.11.2014, spotted shortly whereafter by the 
complainant at G.T. Road. Upon query, from amongst the people 
gathered around, Muhammad Akbar (PW-8) and Adeel Saad (given 
up) informed the complainant that the appellants along with the 
fourth companion intercepted Farhan Saeed and whisked him 
towards Lahore in their car. According to the complainant, he found 
Criminal Appeal Nos.324 & 325 of 2021                               2 
a chit lying in the car demanding ransom of rupees one crore. The 
incident was reported to the police at 1:45 p.m. pursuant whereto, a 
police contingent chased the suspects and engaged them near Poll 
170 North on the Motorway. The accused resisted the contingent 
and in exchange of fire, one of them Nadeem received fire shots and 
succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The abductee, in 
handcuffs, was rescued while the appellants were arrested at the 
spot. 
 
The appellants claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution 
produced a number of witnesses; of them, Irfan Saeed (PW-6), 
Farhan Saeed, (PW-7) and Muhammad Akrbar (PW-8) are prominent 
in the array; in a unison, the witnesses reiterated the prosecution 
case with details of events subsequent thereto. According to the 
accused, the abductee was teasing women at Morr Emanabad that 
ignited a situation there, subsequently graduated into a fake police 
encounter maneuvered by the alleged abductee to settle a score over 
a monetary dispute with Nadeem deceased. Unimpressed by the 
plea, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants 
as under: 
“U/s 365-A PPC 
Imprisonment for life to the each convict and the whole 
property of the each convict shall also liale to be forfeiture 
in favour of the State 
U/s 7(e) ATA 
Imprisonment for life to the each convict and the whole 
property of the each convict shall also liale to be forfeiture 
in favour of the State 
U/s 337-A(i) PPC 
Imprisonment for one year RI to each convict alongwith 
payment of amount of Rs.10000/- as Daman to the victim 
U/s 337-F(i) PPC 
Imprisonment for one year RI to each convict alongwith 
payment of amount of Rs.10000/- as Daman to the victim” 
 
The High Court viewed the trial Court’s judgment with approval, 
however, set aside appellants’ sentences recorded under sections 
337 A(i), F(i) PPC on account of composition signified by the injured/ 
abductee.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants contend that 
occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime 
report; that presence of Shamshad Begum with a minor child in her 
lap suggests a scenario diametrically inconsistent with the 
hypothesis of abduction for ransom. Conceding partial composition, 
the learned counsel, nonetheless, has strenuously argued that story 
of a readily available written-note requires a pinch of salt. Totality of 
Criminal Appeal Nos.324 & 325 of 2021                               3 
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution itself unmistakably 
suggest that the prosecution did not come up with a whole truth. 
Alternately, he has argued that at the most a case of abduction 
simpliciter is made out and that he would be more than satisfied 
with a corresponding modification in the conviction. The learned Law 
Officer has defended the impugned judgment; he argued that the 
appellants were arrested red-handed and the abductee, in 
handcuffs, was rescued shortly after he was taken away on a 
gunpoint, from the car with one of the appellants on wheel.   
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Appellants’ 
red-handed 
arrest, 
notwithstanding, 
a 
female with a child in their company with handcuffed abductee on 
board the vehicle, overtaken by the police contingent shortly after 
registration of a case straight at a police station, compounded by 
violent death of one of the captors, nonetheless, does not allow a 
space to throw out the prosecution case on the basis of grounds 
agitated at the bar. However, argument that the prosecution does 
not possess enough evidence to conclusively hypothesize the story of 
abduction for ransom, is not entirely beside the mark inasmuch as 
mere reliance upon a hand-written note in the abandoned vehicle, 
that too, in an encounter, seemingly unanticipated, and events 
subsequent thereto are the factors more vividly spelling out 
abduction rather simpliciter than the one calculated to fetch 
ransom. On appraisal of entire evidence, we are inclined to partially 
allow the appeals by converting appellants’ conviction from section 
365-A to section 365  PPC and sentence them with 7-years RI with a 
direction to pay fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each or to undergo 
six months SI in default thereof; pre-trial period inclusive. 
Convection under section 7(e) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 is set 
aside with consequences concomitant thereof. Appeals partly 
allowed.     
 
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
17th February, 2022 
Azmat/-