Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in reporting the matter to the Police, was not fatal to the case of prosecution, especially in the circumstances when nobody was named in the FIR, and that fact could not be made basis for acquittal of accused---Both witnesses of last seen who were residents of the same locality and were very well known to deceased, had no ill-will or grudge with accused to falsely involve him in the case---Even defence could not establish any bad blood between accused and said witnesses to prove false implication of accused---Evidence adduced by said two witnesses with regard to last seen, could not be disbelieved when intrinsic worth of their testimony remained unshaken before the Trial Court---Ocular evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses, with regard to demanding ransom amount, was confidence inspiring which could be relied upon---Said prosecution witnesses proved that it was none else but the accused, who firstly abducted the deceased, thereafter demanded ransom amount from the complainant/father of the deceased and later committed murder of the deceased by strangulation---Accused had pointed out the place from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered---Recovery of motorcycle by which accused had taken away the deceased, from the house of accused and other articles belonging to the deceased at the pointation of accused, had provided ample corroboration to the prosecution story---Medical evidence, had further supported the prosecution that the deceased was done to death by strangulation, as disclosed by accused---All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the defence at length, but nothing favourable to accused, or adverse to the prosecution had been extracted from said witnesses---Said witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point---No plausible reason had been brought on record by the defence to prove false involvement of accused in the case, especially when all said witnesses had no previous…