The value of suspicion on the charge of abduction or abduction or murder of the accused is entered when the complainant enters the house and abducts his sister, whose body was later recovered from a gunshot wound. Thirteenth was in the police station after a delay beyond comprehension, when it was said that the station was located four kilometers away. From the scene of the incident, the investigating officer stated that proceedings were initiated under section 157 (2), CCPC, 1898, and statements of witnesses were recorded but neither the complainant nor any of the prosecution witnesses Has made no statement or submitted any document to prove the investigative claim. The officer complainant was not an eyewitness to the incident and all the prosecution witnesses had a very close relationship with the complainant and each other, the incident happened at midnight and the prosecution witnesses in connection with the identification of the offender in the absence of light. The claim could not be easily accepted. They did not choose to hide their identities. When they chose the cover of the night to abduct a woman, they also raised doubts about the truth of the prosecution's witnesses' claim about the identity of the accused. Witnesses testified that the suspect was arrested the very next day after the incident. The evidence contained in the premises adjoining the complainant's home seemed to be an example of fabricated evidence because it was common knowledge that in cases of kidnapping or abduction, every effort was made to conceal the identity of the abducted prosecution witnesses and statements of the police prosecution. Let the witnesses were recorded after a thirteen day understanding delay to strengthen the prosecution's case.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
