Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A, 342, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Abduction for extortion, wrongful confinement, rioting with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly with common object---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant and two other persons were allegedly over-powered by six armed accused who abducted two persons except complainant, and demanded ransom---One prosecution witness was declared hostile and cross-examined but no favourable statement was extracted from him---Evidence of complainant and his abductee son consisted of divergent statements---Witnesses of recovery, who were injured, were not produced before Trial Court---Alleged incident was reported after one month---Statements of abductees under S.164, Cr. P. C. were recorded after twenty five (25) days of recovery---Accused persons were seen and identified with torch light which was a weak piece of evidence---Neither accused were arrested from the place of encounter nor empties were recovered from spot to prove recovery of abductees after encounter---No question under S.342, Cr. P. C. regarding recovery of abductee from custody of accused was put to accused---Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Accused persons were acquitted of the charge. (b) Criminal trial--- ---Best piece of evidence withheld by prosecution---Effect---Where best piece of evidence was available with a party and same was withheld by him, it could be presumed that either the witness was not ready to support or party had some evil motive behind it in not producing such evidence. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Identification---Scope---Identification of accused in torch light---Evidentiary value---Evidence relating to identification of accused in torch light was weak piece of evidence. Muhammad Bux and others v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 590 rel. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 342---Question not put to accused in his statement---Effect---When any piece of evidence not put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., same could not be used against him for his conviction. Muhammad Shah v. The State 2010 SCMR 1009 rel. (e)…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492