KARACHI, Jan 21: An Anti-Terrorism Court acquitted on Wednesday two accused in a kidnapping for ransom case due to lack of evidence.

Judge Anand Ram Hotwani of ATC-III pronounced his verdict in favour of the accused, Iqbal Hussain alias Muna and Mohammad Shiraz, who were charged with the kidnapping of a 10-year-old boy, Anis Ahmed, for ransom in the limits of Gulberg police station in 2005.

Earlier, an anti-terrorism court had found the accused guilty of committing the crime and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, they challenged the conviction in the high court which had remanded the case back to the trial court for a retrial.

On Jan 10, the court had reserved its verdict for Jan 21 after recording the final arguments of both sides.

The court in its verdict said that in view of the evidence that came up on record the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. It had not been able to prove that the kidnapping and the demand of ransom amount were made by the present accused.

The investigation officer testified that the boy was kidnapped and ransom was paid, but it was doubtful that demand of ransom and the payment was made to the accused as none of the prosecution witnesses had corroborated this, said the verdict.

It further stated that the evidence of the complainant and the victim if perused, it would be found that none of them supported the prosecution regarding the demand of ransom made by the present accused. “The victim, complainant and a policeman, Saeedullah, (mashir of arrest and recovery of ransom), have refused to identify the accused in the open court,” it added.

The court further observed that the prosecution gave up a series of witnesses including the judicial magistrate who conducted the identification parade of accused.

“The case was of a heinous crime and, therefore, the evidence must be of such nature that should not create any doubt, but under these circumstances how can the present accused be said to have committed the offence. Only the solitary word of IO could not be considered without corroboration since the victim and complainant not only denied but also refused to identify the accused. Therefore the accused could not be held responsible for the offence,” the judge wrote in his verdict.

The judge observed that the special public prosecutor argued that the complainant, the victim and the IO had destroyed the prosecution case by deviating from their pervious stance but he did not appeal to the court to declare them hostile at the time of evidence.

He added that the prosecutor was only insisting upon perjury by stating that witnesses deviated from their pervious statements, but the former evidence could not be considered since the high court set aside the judgment and directed to record fresh evidence. The prosecution examined five witnesses including victim Anis Ahmed, complainant Nafees Ahmed, duty officer of Gulberg police station Abdul Qadeer, Saeedullah and investigation officer Ali Muhammad.

According to the prosecution, the accused had kidnapped the boy on April 6, 2005 and demanded a ransom for his release. They freed the victim the same day after collecting the ransom of Rs70,000 and 22-gram gold as the victim’s father was a jeweller. They collected the ransom amount near Karimabad Bridge. The police acting on a lead given by the victim had arrested the accused on April 8, 2005 and recovered an amount of Rs45,000 and a gold biscuit.

The investigation officer, Ali Mohammad, said in the charge-sheet that one of the accused, Shiraz, worked as a domestic servant at the victim’s house and knew his father was financially sound. He along with his associate had kidnapped Anis for ransom.

In the final arguments, the special public prosecutor, Mubashir Mirza, alleged that the complainant and the investigation officer as well as the other prosecution witnesses have damaged the case by deliberately testifying against the prosecution contrary to their pervious statements and have been mixed up with the accused.

He concluded that the crime was committed as the accused were given a life term in this case earlier but now the prosecution witnesses had destroyed the evidence. He prayed to the court to decide the case on merit.

The defence counsel submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as the witnesses did not depose against the accused nor identified them before the trial court while there was no evidence that could connect the accused with the alleged offence.

They further argued that the alleged recovery was a circumstantial evidence and the mashir of recovery had not identified the accused, therefore, it was no more valid.

They said that the only evidence according to the prosecution was the deposition of the IO but his evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence.

They concluded that it was a case of no evidence and prayed to the court to acquit their clients.

A case (FIR73/05) was registered under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, at Gulberg police station on the complaint of the victim’s father, Nafees Ahmed.

The court also ordered the authorities concerned to return the recovered amount and gold to the complainant after disposal of appeal if filed by any party.

Earlier, the special public prosecutor had filed an application in court under Section 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the Pakistan Penal Code against the complainant and the investigation officer.

However, the court rejected the plea on the ground that the prosecutor did not declare the complainant and the IO hostile at the time of their evidence, adding that if their evidence was perused it would be found that they had not given false evidence.

Meanwhile, the SPP said that he would approach the authority concerned to challenge the order in the appellate court since the case was not decided on merit.