Section 365A & 34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Appreciating kidnapping for ransom, joint intent, acts of terrorism Flames in the eye with delay of almost thirty hours in filing FIR The reason for the pick up and the signal was that the prosecution witness did not confirm the contents of the FIR, which he and his accompanying witness allegedly saw in the company of the minor / alleged kidnapper. He testified that he had been abducted by the accused, while holding the knife in his hand. The complainant admitted that his younger son / abductor had returned home, there was no sign of torture / torture on his body, police did not receive any call, cellphone / SIM data during the complaint, In his testimony, the accused confessed to having some money dispute with his father, which led him to file a criminal case against him. NG's dishonesty checks, kidnapped children, do not produce any exposed image like the prosecution case because the testimony in this case was contradictory, contradictory and contradictory, as well as numerous instability cases involving the accused. The story of a chicken and a bull proved to be true. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court was set aside, he was acquitted of the charge, and he was released,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
