The prosecution of the prosecution's two witnesses in Section 5A5A Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 and 7 of the Abduction for Property, Precious Security, etc., evidence did not, in the circumstances, prove that the alleged abductor's father The main charge was against the man, who was a natural guardian, but he was acquitted by the trial court, whose alleged kidnapper was recovered, the trial court revealed. There was no direct evidence available on record to meet with the father, and his co-accused was sentenced due to circumstances for the sole reason that the alleged kidnapper was recovered from his acquittal, evidence of which Was totally skeptical of. The prosecutor's two witnesses never appeared in court despite the bail warrants, to record evidence that their abducted son's natural guardian received telephonic calls from the kidnappers demanding ransom. He cannot be held liable for kidnapping since the prosecution has failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Anonymous verdicts were set aside and the accused was acquitted and released under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
