Section ((e) abduction for ransom was paid by the trial court without the assurance of release of the beneficiary's conviction and the trial court sentenced the accused to death at the time of payment. The inquiry was not made about welfare and kidnappers who were so strange and confused and to the human mind, no wise man, without any kind of management. 000, in the circumstances, could not pay huge sums in the absence of the kidnappers on payment. No release warrant was issued on 5 5 2001 and the kidnapper was released on 6 and 11 2001, a suspicion was raised in the prosecution case and the accused could not be denied. Even when the kidnappers were summoned - by the police to take part in the identification parade in the jail, it was raised that he was a little boy as he prevailed on the names of the accused and how. The names of the accused were identified and how their real names came to the knowledge of the prosecution witness, who facilitated litigation to get the accused involved and provided information. It also facilitated the arrest of the accused officer from the police station, which was a mystery and the prosecution did not produce any substantive evidence, even after the absence, the accused could not be connected to the commission of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. Failing to prove his case, in which he could be sentenced to death, both the courts, presenting their own verdicts, were unable to properly evaluate the evidence.
