Section 365A & 34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 (2) (e) Abduction for ransom, joint intent, verification of evidence from the Terrorism Act, an unexpected 55-day delay in filing an FIR , Serious suspicion was created. And it can be gathered that the complainant filed an FIR after discussions, discussions, discussions and deliberations after a single objection. And it was alleged that the accused were not punished. The charges were not identified, which allegedly kidnapped the alleged ransom suspect, faced a prosecution witness, who allegedly contacted the suspects via mobile phone, and settled the matter. Were. In the amount of the ransom, neither the police mentioned the mobile number in their statement, nor did they disclose in their evidence before the trial court prosecution witness, who allegedly paid the ransom money. And neither mentioned their serial numbers. The currency notes, nor any identifying marks were mentioned by the witnesses. The accused could not be trusted to recover the cash from the house of the accused. The witnesses of the prosecution had falsely improved their statements during the trial, And the kidnappers were not recovered from the dispute, nor did the ransom prove to be demanded, nor was there an identity parade held to identify the accused. And the prosecution allegedly failed to establish its alliance with the incident, neither was the location of the detention identified by the investigating officer, nor any such incident.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
