Section 365A & 34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Abduction for abduction or ransom, Complaint of appreciation of evidence of terrorist act, His minor daughter abduction was not witnessed. , Both eye witnesses resigned. His previous statements when he testified before the trial court and reported that the kidnappers had been abducted by some unknown persons, and that they had been called a suspected kidnapper, who was the star witness of the prosecution case, His statement faced natural contradictions and a large number. The deficiencies were denied by his real grandfather and other prosecutor's witnesses, the child witness / alleged kidnapping group was contradictory, and it was difficult to believe that the kidnapper had not said a word. He was abducted by the accused on his way home. The school and the motorcycle used in the incident did not mention the alleged kidnapper's testimony provided no clue about demanding ransom, or his payment to the accused by his father; and his The release was a deal, not between him and his father, nor did he mention that he was rescued by the police, his statement cannot be relied upon to cross the threshold of the child's testimony. Cannot allow. In this case, the contradictions and flaws caused by it. His testimony replaced the FIR's terrain as a prosecutor's witness; at no stage was any evidence presented regarding telephone contact between the accused and the complainant, the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses Hereditary
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
