Section 365A West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX 1965), Section 13 (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 (2) (e) and 7 (e) Abduction Proof of Abduction One of the main victims of the abduction was a very comprehensive account of the incident, when it said that cross-examination by defense against a witness could not break its evidence. Such evidence or that he lied against the accused for any illicit purpose or personal interest, either within himself or his family, other witnesses who were the victim's father and uncle also supported the case and Could not cross-check against. The defining result of a defense theory that emerged, for the first time, in the process of cross-examination was that there was business enmity between the brother-in-law. f The complainant and the accused, as the accused were falsely involved in the case, were well thought out, the rest of the witnesses, including the government officials, who also supported the case to their extent. And they had proof. The cross-examination conducted by the defense in connection with his abduction did not yield any visas, some of the irregularities committed by the police during the investigation could hardly have a negative effect on the basis of which. But the court can take action against it. The independent view that the case for the abduction case was dubious was that the prosecution's witnesses were credible and credible and that the accused had been charged against the accused for ransom, under the shadow of any reasonable doubt. Proved to be beyond. Abduction by the trial court accused, yes, of TT
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
