Find a Lawyer

KACHKOOL versus THE STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 365 A & 120 B praised the complainant's statements and he, the abductor, made the point when the accused asked when he took the police party to the house where the abductor was detained. And the confessional statement made by the accused language is used in this memo. The kidnapper did not mention the kidnapper's recovery but was only at the detention center. The kidnapper revealed in his interim inquiry that he had not seen the suspect with the police at the time of his recovery, but only found out that the suspect had been arrested. The recovery of the abductor statement was reflected in the testimony of witnesses who stated that the accused was present with the accused at the time of the abductor's recovery. He was not inspected except by his brother, who was recovered by the police in 1995 and contacted by the local police during the investigation and made his statement before the owner of the PCO case. I was notified of a demand for ransom by the kidnapper where the alleged arrested suspect was not examined. Or the witnesses of the named prosecution were cited. After a delay of 7/8 days at the three different places where the accused was arrested, the accused's confession was recorded if the accused had identified the abductor's location on the same day. Voluntarily, the prosecution failed to bring charges against the accused from the house and the accused was sentenced and on the one hand and he was acquitted of the charge. advocate from Lakki Marwat lawyer