Section 302 (b), 365A & 34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 (2) (a) and 7 (a) abduction for ransom, joint intent, terrorism act both evidence. Testimony of witnesses not only made contradictory statements, but also made some contradictory statements, for the last time witnesses made significant improvements to their statements, for which they regularly encountered their earlier statements under section 161. Had to be seen, there was evidence for the last time the CC was screened by the police to include the accused persons, and to establish links between them and the crime. The contradictions and contradictory statements of both of the prosecution witnesses since the compilation made their statement objective and untrustworthy, with no weight to be given. Last seen, was the weakest type of evidence, which the prosecutor can easily guess, wherever evidence directly linked to an accused did not come his way. The law requires incredible proof of such evidence, but only such evidence was an untrustworthy and unreliable event, which could, without infringement, constitute the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, In the present case, it appears that there was a disturbing, embarrassing situation that thwarted the prosecutor's idea of creating a chain without interruption. Medical evidence may be leading the prosecutor's case in respectful words; the prosecutor, in the circumstances, failed to prove reasonable suspicion of the charges against the suspects, dismissing the unsubstantiated verdict as invalid.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
