IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.8-P & 9-P/2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30.04.2015 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar & 
Abbottabad Bench in Criminal Appeals No.440-P & 
458-P of 2013 respectively). 
 
Fazal Subhan 
(In Crl.A.8-P/2017) 
Rehmat Ullah 
(In Crl.A.9-P/2017) 
             
 
 
              …Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State 
(In Crl.A.8-P/2017) 
Abdul Haseeb and another 
(In Crl.A.9-P/2017) 
            
 
 
             …Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Malik Haroon Iqbal, ASC 
(in both cases) 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
(in both cases) 
 
: Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, 
Additional Advocate General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 02.05.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-  Criminal Appeal 
No.8-P/2017 and Criminal Appeal No.9-P/2017, filed by Fazal 
Subhan and Rehmat Ullah, appellants herein, respectively, arisen 
out of judgment dated 1.8.2013 by Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, 
Peshawar subsequently affirmed by the learned Peshawar High 
Court, bear a common thread; these are being decided through 
this single judgment.  
2. 
 
The appellants along with co-accused, Shah Jee, were 
tried for abducting Abdul Haseeb, PW to extract ransom with co-
accused Amjad being away from law. They were convicted under 
Section 365-A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1898 read with Section 7(e) 
of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for 
Criminal Appeal No.8-P & 9-P/2017  
- 2 - 
 
life. For a charge under Section 17(3) of the Offences against 
Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, they were 
additionally sentenced to 10 years S.I. Sentences to run 
concurrently with benefit under Section 382-B of Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1908. Appeals filed by the convicts met with no better 
fate on 30.4.2015 and it is in this backdrop, leave has been 
granted to re-appraise the entire evidence with a view to ensure 
safe administration of criminal justice. 
3. 
 
According to the complainant, he needed a premises  
on rent and was induced by Shah Jee, accused to visit the one; he 
was taken to a house wherein four accomplices, subdued him; he 
was enchained and deprived of cell phone handset, cash 
Rs.10,000/- and registration book of his cab, it is alleged that the 
captors demanded rupees five million from his brother, Luqman.  
The abductee somehow managed his escape to appear before the 
police in person.   
4.  
 
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there 
was no occasion for appellants’ conviction in the absence of 
confidence inspiring evidence to support the charge and thus the 
learned trial Court, as well as, the High Court ran into error in 
returning guilty verdicts. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer has 
defended the impugned judgments. 
5. 
 
Upon perusal of evidence, we have found the very 
genesis of the prosecution case as being fraught with doubts. 
Various pieces of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do 
not satisfactorily connect the appellants with the commission of 
crime. Memo of pointing out of place of occurrence cannot be 
equated with disclosure within the contemplation Article 40 of the 
Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. How the abductee made his 
escape good despite being held by no less than four persons so as 
to appear without let or hindrance before the police is quite 
intriguing. Demand of ransom from abductee’s brother Luqman is 
a verbal assertion alone with no forensic proof regarding 
conversation on the cell phone.  Vehicle was not recovered from 
any of the accused and the person who produced it is not in the 
array. On the whole, we have found the prosecution case far from 
Criminal Appeal No.8-P & 9-P/2017  
- 3 - 
 
being confidence inspiring and thus consider it unsafe to maintain 
the conviction. Criminal Appeals No.8-P and 9-P/2017 are allowed, 
impugned judgments are set aside and the appellants shall be set 
at liberty, if not required in any other case. 
     
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Peshawar, the 
2nd of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
