Section 5A5A / Anti-Anti Terrorism Act (VI 1997 XX of XXVII), Section evidence (E) Abduction, Terrorism Act Defining evidence evidence The prosecution could not present concrete evidence in support of the charge against the accused. , After linking it with the commission. The accused is accused of the crime. After being a witness to the prosecution, he did not utter a word against the accused and could not identify him as one of the accused was found guilty and the father of the alleged kidnapper was the sole. A conviction was made on the evidence which could not even identify the accused. Before the court's father simply dismissed that he was notified by his son / alleged kidnapper that the accused was not involved in his abduction, nor that the alleged kidnapper was recovered from the possession / occupation of the accused. No evidence has been brought on record to establish this house. , From where the alleged kidnapper was allegedly recovered, was related to the accused on the sole basis of the designated similarity, and the trial court sentenced anyone with only the culprits to his name. The conviction cannot be prosecuted because of the similarity, the conduct of the accused will play an important role in determining his guilt shortly after the incident and was a controversial piece of evidence. In the present case, neither warrant arrest nor any declaration has been made in the three national newspapers required under Section 19 (10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or on record to establish the alleged molestation by the accused. Was. Under Section 234 Cr, CRPC, the fugitive accused was arraigned while the trial court ruled on the prosecution.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
