Section 7 (e) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 342 of the FIRFIR for abduction, was filed after a period of three months from the alleged abduction, and no defining explanation was available There is a delay in the statement. In his evidence on behalf of the complainant in connection with the payment of the ransom, the complainant had taken the stand that he had paid the ransom amount of Rs. 34,00,000 to the accused while filing the FIR. He had told the police that he had paid Rs 5. 00,000 any question, whether the alleged abductee had issued the alleged abductee after receipt of the ransom from the complainant, the prosecution asked the accused in his statements under Section 342, since the defendant had submitted a specific question of recovery, the accused Submitted to, CRPC was illegal because the supply of Section 342, CRPC was mandatory and non-compliance is illegal which is not treatable under Section 373737, PC no doubt The deployment of the suspects was inconsistent and they were accused of being charged, but the kidnapper made a contradictory statement, leading to The suspected alleged abductor on the defendant's statement stated that he did not identify one of the suspects, was not suspicious, the evidence of the abductor was not trustworthy, did not help the prosecutor, Has supported the defendant's stance, though the case is not without doubt, the benefit of which was always to give the accused a prosecution case. Confidence was not encouraged and the conviction of the accused was established on fraudulent evidence which could not be sustained in law, the appeal
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
