Section 365A & 34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Terrorism Act, kidnapping or kidnapping for property, valuable security, etc., complimentary evidence, in addition to the alleged abductor, the alleged incident. The only eyewitness to the incident was the first informant, the prosecution witness / police sub-inspector did not support the second witness version of the prosecution in relation to the number of suspects, saying that Section I had arrived at the house of the alleged kidnapper. Claimed, and filed an FIR, that neither the natural nor the prosecution's motion to initiate a prosecution case Yes, it occupied an important position, if it demonstrated logic in any case and it should not be free from natural conviction and any natural instability, nor would it be safe to believe the story of the prosecution. , Nor could the prosecution maintain a perpetuity based on the prosecutor's story nviction It was not natural for the sub-inspector police to prepare themselves as investigative officers, as their role and style were police rolls and police orders. Was against It was not without a doubt, but the story of the abduction brought cloud to the point that the root of the matter had become so shaky that it could not control the conviction of the accused because the lie had improved. And the evidence was arranged so that the prosecution's story reinforced the alleged abductor, no doubt he was accused of his abduction, but he did not specify any of the suspects' role, and Nor did it allege that it was the accused who remained silent on the kidnapping charge
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
