Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- -----Ss. 302, 365-A & 34-----Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)(e)-----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103-----Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism-----Appreciation of evidence-----Delay in lodging FIR, had fully been explained-----Mere fact that abductee was of tender age, would not ipso facto make his evidence unreliable-----Close and careful scrutiny, which was required for relying upon the evidence of child witness, was fully adopted by the Trial Court-----Evidence of Doctors, was also quite reliable for the reasons that they had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate accused persons in the case-----Recoveries, had been proved by the prosecution by confidence inspiring evidence-----Huge evidence was on record to connect accused persons in the commission of the offence-----Defence plea raised by accused persons, was an afterthought-----Mere raising of defence plea, without substance, would not destroy strong prosecution evidence-----Prosecution witnesses, including abductee child had given details about involvement of accused in the process of kidnapping of child for ransom-----Prosecution evidence was truthful and confidence inspiring-----Complicity of accused for commission of offence of kidnapping for ransom; and object was fully proved by prosecution evidence-----No glaring defect, material irregularity or legal infirmity could be pointed out by defence in the finding of the Trial Court; as regards appreciation of evidence, or quantum of sentence awarded to accused-----Insistence upon strict compliance with the terms of S.103, Cr.P.C., in the recoveries, would be unjustified-----Defence, had failed to shake the credibility of prosecution witnesses-----No mitigating or extenuating circum-stances, warranting lesser punishment, were present in the case-----Accused persons having committed offence in the brutal manner, they did not deserve any leniency in the sentence-----Appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances. Ameer Hamza alias Hamza v. The State 2015 PCr.LJ 1402; Ayub v. Munsif and another 2015 PCr.LJ 369; Shoukat Ali v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 26; The State…