Section 365 A & 34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 (e) and 7 (e) Abduction for ransom, joint intent, terrorism Act Evidence of suspicion Different faces at the time of the accused The alleged incident with neither the complainant nor any other entity could identify them, the next day, despite the Lewis check post, the alleged incident was very close, according to the complainant's statement that the FIR was consulted. Was filed with and subsequently considered because of the delay in filing the FIR, so that it could not be taken lightly, as it did in the prosecution's case. Serious doubts were expressed skepticism, the record was no explanation as to the legal FIR, had come into the picture through a supplementary statements of the accused's name complaint. For the first time, neither the individual's statement nor the supplementary statement was credible, since false charges could not be filed on the accused immediately, the prosecution's story as stated by the complainant in the cases, argued. No appeal, the statement of the prosecution's witness was not considered credible, and it appeared that the witness had concealed the original dispute between the parties, all of the prosecution's witnesses were close. Relating to one another, and one of the alleged kidnappers was related, the prosecution failed to produce an independent witness to corroborate the prosecution's case, and the accused could not be found guilty only on the statements of those witnesses. Interested and closely related to the alleged kidnapper, the kidnapper was not charged with the capture of the accused.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015
