Section 656565, an Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), defined the evidence for section 7 as ransom charges against the accused, the recovery of the ear ring, and then the charge of recovery of a child who was taken into custody. The complainant's evidence was further revealed that the accused contacted the complainant and demanded a ransom for the recovery of the child, which the accused had to pay, the prosecution's witnesses' statement fully supported by the complainant. And the ring of the earring was the defendant's lawyer did not seriously challenge the oral evidence to the accused's lawyer. Had proved the case against the accused was mandatory to accept the ransom money was left ear ring was derived from the possession of the accused and the ransom money from her ear ring. The evidence was sufficient to link the accused to the commission of the crime, not to mention every detail in the charge. During the trial, the accused was not prejudiced by his or her defense, if any of the accused, accused of prejudice. Had failed, his defense error could have been corrected under Articles 225, 535 and 537, the CRPC's appeal accused dismissed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
