Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 437 and Murder Reference No 121 of 1979 decided on 27th October, 1981.

-- S. 364-A-Evidence, appreciation of---Kidnapping of a minor--- Testimony of abductee found natural and free from defect and corroborated by independent evidence-Accused apprehended at spot while taking away abductee minor and abductee recovered from his possession-No motive to implicate accused falsely found with witnesses or for Police to cook up a false case against accused--- Conviction maintained.-[Kidnapping].

-- S. 364-A-Death sentence, confirmation of-Accused a young man of twenty abducting a minor girl aged 7 with intention to make her slave and subject her to lust of some persons-Nature of offence being grave, accused, held, deserved no leneiency in matter of sentence of death.-[Sentence].

Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti for Appellant.

Kh. Ghulam Qadir for the State.

Date of hearing : 19th September, 1981.

-Raza Khan appellant was convicted under section 364-A. P. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 3rd March 1979 and sentenced to death. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case was referred to this Court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 374, Cr. P. C. for the confirmation of death sentence. The appeal and reference are being disposed of together.

2. On 17th April, 1974, at about 8-00 p.m. Mst. Tasneem Hafeez, aged about seven years and her younger brother Majid Hafeez aged about six years had gone to the betel shop of Muhammad Rafique, situated in Chowk bazar Talwaran, Rawalpindi. After they had purchased the betel and covered some distance, Raza Khan appellent abducted Mst. Tasneem Hafeez (P. W. 2). Her brother Majid Hafeez raised noise Abdul Hafeez Khan (father of Mst. Tasneem Hafeez) was proceeding towards his house. On hearing the cries, he rushed towards the spot. Nazeer (P.W-3) and Aslam (not produced) joined him on the way. They gave chase and ultimately succeeded in recovering Mst. Tanseem Hafeez from the custody of the appellant near the Clinic of Lady Dr. Begum Usmani. The complainant and other witnesses apprehended the appellant and took him to the Police Station D-Division, Rawalpindi, where Abdul Hafeez Khan made statement Exh. P. A. The case was registered on his statement. The complainant and witnesses produced Raza Khan at the Police Station, who was arrested and the Police recovered one Camy wrist watch and Rs. 1.50 (rupee one and paisas fifty) from the appellant. The Police submitted challan after completing the investigation.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of the case. Mst. Tasneem Hafeez was examined on 21st July, 1979. She gave her age as twelve years. The occurrence had taken place on 17th March, 1974. The learned Additional Sessions Judge put up certain questions to Mst Tasneem Hafeez in order to find out if she was intelligent enough to make statement. The witness clearly stated that she had been abducted by the appellant while on her way back to the house from the betel shop of Muhammad Rafique. She further stated that her younger brother Majid Hafeez raised alarm but she was not allowed to do so as the appellant had placed his hand on her mouth. She also stated that she was recovered by her father and two other persons, who apprehended the appellant from where they had gone to the Police Station. The witness was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellant. The testimony of the said witness could not be shaken. From the statement of the witness, it was quite evident that it was natural and free from any defect. The statement of Mst. Tasneem Hafeez was fully corroborated by the evidence furnished by her father Abdul Hafeez (P.W. 1). Muhammad Nazeer (P.W-3) and Muhammad Rafique (P.W-4). The statement of the said witnesses received further coroboration from other circumstances. The appellant was apprehended while taking away Mst. Tasneem Hafeez and she was recovered from his possession. The appellant was apprehended at the spot and taken to the Police Station. All the witnesses in this case were absolutely disinterested and they had no motive to implicate the appellant falsely in this case. The Police had no ill-will against the appellant and there was no reason to cook up a false case. The appellant was unable to give out any explanation as to why he had been involved falsely in this case. He admitted that police recovered Camy watch from his possession. As regards the money, he stated that instead of Rs. 1.50 (rupee one and paisas fifty) the Police had recovered Rs. 113 (rupees one hundred and thirteen) from his possession. It appears from his statement that he had been earlier involved in kidnapping and murder case of a girl from Bhabra Bazar, which occurrence had taken place on 16th March, 1974.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant had nothing much to argue in this case. He contended that the prosecution version was not correct as the appellant could not dare to kindnap the minor child from a crowded bazar. He further argued that the prosecution did not utter a single word about the intention of the appellant and thus appellant could not be convicted for offence under section 364-A, P. P. C. and at the most the offence was under section 363, P. P. C.

We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and do not find any force in those contentions. Mst. Tasneem Hafeez was abducted while she was on her way back to her house at some distance from the shop of Muhammad Rafique (P. W-4). After abducting her, the appellant had placed his hand on the mouth of Mst. Tasneem Hafeez, so that she could not raise any noise. As regards the intention, it has to be gathered from the circumstances. The appellant was a resident of village Shinka, District Attock. He had come to Rawalpindi and he had not given any object of his visit to Rawalpindi. He was a young person of twenty years of age and had abducted a minor girl aged about seven years. His intention was quite clear. He had abducted the minor child with the intention of making her, slave and that she would be subjected to the lust of some person. The offence under section 364-A, P. P. C. was clearly made out.

5. The case was proved to the hilt against the appellant and tiel was rightly convicted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded proper sentence in this case. The appellant had given his age as twenty l years in his statement, recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. on 3^rd February, 1979. Even according to his own statement, he was aged about twenty years and not fifteen, years as now given in the grounds of appeal. The child lifting cases have become very common. One can very well imagine the agouy and sufferings of a person, whose minor child, especially a girl has been kidnapped. The appellant does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. We do not find any mitigating circumstance for reducing his sentence. The judgment of the trial Court is upheld and we dismiss the appeal.

The sentence of death of Raza Khan is confirmed.

Death sentence confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.