No time, date or place of the alleged abduction was given by the prosecution's witnesses against the verification of evidence, under Section 302/34/364 Criminal Code (v. 1898), section 417 (2A). The FIR was filed approximately 6/2 months after the alleged abduction and the delay in filing the FIR was not adequately explained; the testimony of the prosecution witnesses due to material contradictions, There was no shortage of intrinsic value and no inherent value. And on the basis of the last conviction, all the evidence of the prosecution was based on the testimony of the witnesses, which created the trust of the accused as fake and could not be relied upon to reveal the extra-judicial confession presented by the prosecution. Were extra-judicial confession, failing to establish four components to prove extra-judicial confession, ie extra-judicial confession. This confession was made voluntarily. It was actually made and the motive behind it was proven, saying witnesses also failed to explain why they did not take any action to arrest the accused when he committed a confession before them. Yes, it was said that the witness was made. And neither the trust was impressive nor the delay and reliability of the filing of the FIR, nor the failure to present impressive and reliable evidence of the trust to the last and the dimension of the additional judicial confession, Reported the incident as "very shocking" and there was no evidence. The prosecution was unable to bring home the allegations of prosecution, following the trial.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
