KARACHI, Oct 8: An anti-terrorism court has acquitted two accused in a kidnap for ransom case primarily because the victims did not turn up to testify.

Judge Abdul Ghafoor Memon of ATC-II, who recorded the final arguments of the defence and prosecution counsel on Oct 6, pronounced the verdict on Saturday.

Shahida, a factory worker, and her two-and-a-half-year-old nephew Zahid were allegedly abducted by her two colleagues, Maqbool Ahmed and Ghulam Qasim, in the limits of the Khawaja Ajmer Nagri police station on June 20, 2007.

The accused were indicted on June 15. They had pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the case.

The prosecution recorded the testimonies of seven witnesses including Abdul Qadir, father of Zahid, and Mohammad Luqman, brother of Abdul Qadir.

The witnesses, in their separate statements on Sept 22, narrated the entire story. They identified the accused in police custody and confirmed that their sister and the child were recovered from the accused.

On Sept 15, the court recorded the statement of witness Ms Shazia, who had been arrested and interrogated before being subsequently released. She was taken into custody by the police on complaints of Shahida’s relatives. The police played an audio recording in her presence in which the abductors had demanded the ransom. She recognized the voice of the accused Maqbool Ahmed and told the police that he was working with them in the factory. The police conducted a raid on Maqbool’s residence and arrested him on June 6, 2007. The kidnap victims were recovered on the same day from a house No 228-C, 5-1/2 Korangi. The other accused Ghulam Qasim was arrested on July 8, 2007.

The police registered a case (FIR No 159/07) at the Khwaja Ajmir Nagri police station under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code r/w 7 (e) ATA, which deal with the offence of kidnapping for ransom.

The Special Public Prosecutor, Niamat Ali Randhawa, argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, father of the kidnapped child and Judicial Magistrate Azizullah Khoso had proved the involvement of the accused in the kidnapping. He insisted that the accused deserved life imprisonment.

However, the defence counsel, Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua, argued that the kidnap victim had not been produced in court. It was a false case against his clients which, he pleaded, should be disposed of.

He argued that the girl had got married of her own accord, but her family seemed to be unhappy with the decision and had planned a kidnap drama.

The alleged kidnap victim’s family members told the court that after her marriage in Punjab her husband and other family members did not want her to appear in court to testify.

According to the defence counsel, the girl’s family had claimed that she was virgin while a medical report indicated otherwise.

He said the owner of the house, where the kidnap victims were kept, was not produced in court as a prosecution witness.

Mr Janjua said the entire story was based on the statement of Zahid’s mother, but she was also not produced in court as a witness.

According to the judgment, there is a lot of contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The testimonies of Abdul Qadir, father of the kidnap victim, and Luqman, brother of Abdul Qadir, did not square with each other. The prime witnesses, Shahida and Zahid, were not produced in court to identify the accused.

There were discrepancies in the statement of the investigation officer regarding the time of arrest, the judge states, adding that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused in the case.

Ejaz, a co-accused in the case is still at large, and will be tried on his arrest, says the judgment.