Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 365-A,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 164

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(e)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Act of terrorism, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Besides alleged abductee, the only eye-witness of the alleged incident was the first informant of the incident---Prosecution witness/Sub-Inspector of Police did not support the version of other prosecution witness regarding number of accused persons---Manner in which said S.I.P. claimed to have reached the house of alleged abductee, and lodged the F.I.R., was neither natural nor confidence inspiring---Prosecution story being foundation on which edifice of the prosecution case was raised, occupied a pivotal position in case, it should, in circumstance stand to reason and must be natural convincing and free from any inherent improbability---Neither safe to believe a prosecution story which did not meet said requirements, nor a prosecution case based on improbable prosecution story could sustain conviction---Sub-Inspector of Police did not appear to be natural to dress himself up as Investigating Officer, as his role and manner was against the Police Rules and Police Order; it was not free from doubt, rather had brought clouds over the very story of abduction---Root of the case became so shaky that it could not hold the conviction of accused---Investigation had not been conducted honestly as false improvements had been made; and evidence was arranged so as to strengthen the prosecution story---Alleged abductee, no doubt had stuck with allegation of her abduction, but nowhere she specified any role to any of accused persons, nor even alleged that they were those accused---Mere sticking with allegation of abductee, was not sufficient to prove the guilt in circumstances---Evidence of alleged abductee being not direct against accused persons, same was not sufficient for holding conviction against accused persons---Confessional statements of accused persons, were not in line with each other---Retracted confession would not fit in prosecution story---Witness, who allegedly identified two accused persons, was not the witness of…