IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition Nos.1152 & 1153 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 07.07.2020 passed by the 
Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Appeal No.8 of 
2011) 
 
 
 
Muhammad Makki  
(in Crl. P.1152/2020) 
Alam Sher & another  
(in Crl. P.1153/2020) 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State, etc.  
(in both cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Afrasiab Khan, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi,  
 
Advocate General, Islamabad 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Rukhsana Kousar (sister of complainant) 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
11.01.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for abduction 
for ransom, Muhammad Makki, Alam Sher, Aamir Rehman and Abdul 
Ghafoor, in absence of Adnan Khan, proclaimed offender, were tried 
through a private complaint by a learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism 
Act, Rawalpindi; they were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 
18.01.2011; barring Abdul Ghafoor, the abductee successfully assailed 
acquittals before the Islamabad High Court; convicted under section 
365 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the remainder were sentenced to 
Criminal Petition Nos.1152 & 1153 of 2020 
2
7-years R.I. with a direction to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500,000/- 
each, pre-trial period inclusive, vide impugned judgment dated 
07.07.2020 vires whereof, are being challenged on the grounds that 
there was no occasion for the High Court to overturn well reasoned 
judgment of the trial Court, that too, after maintaining acquittal of 
identically placed co-accused, in the absence of convincingly strong 
grounds as required by law. It is next argued that after High Court’s 
refusal to accommodate complainant’s plea of abduction to exact 
ransom, the entire case was cast away and, thus, intervention by this 
Court is most called for. The learned Advocate General Islamabad has 
supported the impugned judgment; according to him, the learned 
Special Judge ran into error in ignoring the overwhelming evidence 
that squarely established abduction and subsequent recovery beyond a 
shadow of doubt; he adds that prosecution’s failure on coordinate 
charge, does not tremor its case to the extent of abduction and, thus, a 
partial failure must not result into denial of justice to a victim, 
grievously wronged.  
2. 
 
The incident dates back to 15th of September 2009 during 
late hours within the precincts of Police Station Shalimar when Aamir 
Shahzad (PW-4) had taken his wife and sister to a dentist in F-11; he 
left the family to himself offer Ishaa prayer; he failed to rejoin the 
family in inclement weather, that returned home on its own, latter to 
find him gone missing. On the following night at about 9/10:00 p.m, 
the complainant received a call from abductee’s cell phone; an 
anonymous caller demanded for 25 crore as ransom. The vehicle was 
subsequently found abandoned near a filtration plant in F-11/4; the 
police were taken on board. Muhammad Afzal (PW-3), residing in the 
United States rushed back to rescue the abductee, no other than his 
brother; in his struggle to locate the abductee, he was approached by 
Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Makki accused; they offered him their 
good offices for a negotiated settlement; deal for finally struck for 
rupees 10 crore; it is in this backdrop, the Investigating Officer along 
with the witnesses, with photostat bills, discreetly confronted Aamir 
Rehman accused; in pursuance to his disclosure, they recovered the 
detenue from Flat No.5 of a high-rise building; Muhammad Makki and 
Alam Sher accused were also taken into custody from the scene. 
Dissatisfied with the police investigation, the family preferred a private 
Criminal Petition Nos.1152 & 1153 of 2020 
3
complaint to prosecute the offenders by producing as many as eight 
witnesses, CWs inclusive.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Spreading over 32 pages, the trial Court judgment deals, at 
inordinate lengths, with issues primarily peripheral in nature, 
highlighting lapses in the investigative process; it blames the 
complainant and her witnesses for some delay in their disclosures as 
well as certain omissions regarding place of abductee’s confinement in 
the private complaint; concomitant discordance of a crisis devastating 
a terror stricken family has been unnecessarily overstretched to 
burden the prosecution to meet misconceived and artificial standards 
of proof, hardly relevant to the core issue while sidelining the 
preponderance of evidence furnished by the natural witnesses, with no 
axe to grind, rightly assessed by the High Court to have successfully 
driven home the charge.  
 
Peaceful equilibrium in the society essentially requires a dynamic 
and realistic approach in administration of criminal justice, no doubt 
with all procedural fairness and safeguards, essential to ensure fair 
trial to an accused by keeping the scales in balance. The present case 
starts with recourse to law by abductee’s sister on the following day of 
former’s disappearance after the vehicle last used by the family was 
spotted abandoned; the episode started with a script that cannot be 
viewed as suspect. Muhammad Afzal (PW-3) rushed back from the 
United States to rescue his brother and it was in this backdrop that 
Muhammad Makki and Abdul Ghafoor emerged from the blue as the 
“saviors” ; the chain of circumstances, ultimately connects itself with 
the abductee, latched under the surveillance of his captors; consistent 
and confidence inspiring, preponderance of formidable evidence is 
halfheartedly met by the defence with bald denials alone. Prosecution’s 
partial failure on the charge of section 365-A of the Act ibid as well as 
acquittal of Abdul Ghafoor on account of his absence from the scene at 
the time of raid on the D-day, though embarrassing to the prosecution, 
nonetheless, does not adversely reflect upon the integrity of the charge, 
firmly resting in the totality of chain of circumstances, ranging from 
abduction, surreptitious confinement of the abductee, ultimately 
leading to his recovery with accused on guard from a premise under 
their knowledge and occupation.  
Criminal Petition Nos.1152 & 1153 of 2020 
4
 
Acquittal is not an immutable divine declaration of redemption; it 
is adjudication by a tribunal manned by individuals, susceptible to 
error and, thus, in order to avoid miscarriage of justice, a duty is cast 
upon the Appellate Court to undertake an effective and meaningful 
scrutiny of entire evidence; the High Court has remedied a grievous 
wrong, thus, no interference is called for. Petitions fail. Leave declined.  
 
   
 
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
11th January, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
