Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------S. 365-A --------- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXV of 1997), S.7(e) --------- Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d) --------- Kidnapping for ransom, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Evidence of Investigating Officer, regarding recovery of the unlicensed Repeaters and Car, used in the crime, corroborated the ocular account furnished by complainant and abductee --------- Nothing was on record to show that Investigating Officer had mala fide or enmity with accused persons to foist Repeaters upon them --------- Repeaters, having been recovered from personal search of accused, provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had not been violated --------- Despite lengthy cross-examination, no dent in the prosecution case had been pointed out to discredit the prosecution evidence --------- Acquitted co-accused, was not implicated by abductee and other material witnesses --------- Such acquittal of co-accused would not furnish sufficient ground for acquittal of accused persons for the reasons that natural and confidence inspiring evidence of abductee, had come on record in which accused persons had been implicated --------- Alleged abductee had categorically stated that he was kidnapped for ransom --------- In order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom and proof thereof, were not the sine qua non --------- Said offence stood constituted; if there was an abduction and the purpose of abduction, was extortion of money, or ransom was demanded for the release of abductee --------- Complainant, prosecution witness and abductee had deposed that demand for ransom was made by accused persons, and it was paid to them by prosecution witness --------- Sufficient evidence had been brought on record, that abductee was kidnapped by accused persons for the purpose of extorting money, and offence for kidnapping for ransom was proved --------- Ingredients of offence of kidnapping for ransom, had fully been proved in the case --------- Trial Court having dilated upon all aspects of the case and appreciated evidence in its true perspective, impugned of the Trial Court required no…