Section 5A5A Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Disposal of Evidence The suspect's father, who knew the accused, was arrested after the FIR Six months after the abduction and recovery of his son in the R-file, the truth of the FIR was severely questioned, not a single independent witness was presented to support the story of the abduction. , The prosecution's witnesses did not make various statements about the delivery trial. If a case of ransom was filed to provide forgiveness to an accused, if the prosecution's witnesses could have involved an accused in a false case, then their statements would constitute extremely strong, independent, and proportionate evidence against them. In the absence, evidence from the FIR and prosecution can be disclosed that the ransom money was given to the accused, who later apologized to all the prosecution witnesses so that the ransom amount could be transferred to the accused, owing to the defendants. The recovery of the amount was a violation of the provisions of Section 103, CRPC, which was not supported by any control of the area Respect not the same amount of national recovery, which was provided at that time. The release of the kidnappers also did not result, as the work was never sent to a specialist to determine whether they were in the working order or to the witnesses in whose presence the alleged recovery was disclosed. There was no evidence. Without a doubt, the benefit should be given to the accused as a matter of fact and not by grace, the application for leave of appeal was converted into an appeal.
