Section 5 365A Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) Abduction for ransom, value of the act of terrorism The Cage Comp complainant identified the accused in the identification parade as well as the accused in court. Was not accused of any form of enmity or enmity. At this point, no material contradiction was disclosed by the defense lawyer at any point. False contradictions, which are bound to occur in each case, will not be known in the prosecution case. Nonpayment was not a material trial court. The evidence was appropriately appreciated, it was also confirmed by other evidence, despite a lengthy interim investigation, nothing was brought to the record which could not doubt the authenticity of the witness's evidence. Yes, the trial court appreciated the evidence. Given the full weight given by the High Court, the trial court had the benefit of witnessing the witnesses' conduct. Was able to prove that the trial court had declared the accused guilty after defining the evidence against the accused in accordance with the principle of the trial court's case. The perplexing decision was retained, requiring no intervention
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
