Section 365A & 34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Abduction or abduction for property, valuable security, etc., Commonwealth, terrorism operations (abduction or abduction) Definition of evidence Advantage of doubt The accused (appellants) alleged that they had abducted the complainant's grandson for ransom while he had called the complainant demanding the ransom. The accused had also confessed before the magistrate. Referring to the Investigating Officer, who was already in charge of investigating the matter rather than sending them to judicial custody, the Judicial Magistrate, The prosecutor, who was deposed as a witness, admitted in his cross-examination that he was handed over to the investigating officer after recording the confessional statement of the accused, and also admitted that he had requested the investigating officer. But the judicial magistrate in his confessional statements was detained by the judicial magistrate for pressuring the confessional offenses, saying that there was no question in his confessional statements. There was a 10-day delay in recording the confessional statements of the accused persons. During the recovery of the abductor, no independent witness was cited by the prosecutor. Police did not record the statement of the owner of the building or a neighbor from which the abductor was recovered. Such circumstances did not mention the recovery memorandum. Such circumstances raised doubts about the benefit of the prosecution case where the accused was allowed to go and accordingly the accused were acquitted.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
