Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 36395,452,353,220,506-2,504,337H(2),337A(i),427,342,34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 395, 452, 353, 220, 506-2, 504, 337-H(2), 337-A(i), 427, 342 & 34--Abduction for ransom, dacoity, house trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, hurt by rash or negligent act, shajjah-i-khafifah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, wrongful confinement, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Material contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect--Accused was charged for maltreating the servant of complainant, forcibly taking away the detenu, abusing the complainant, extending threats of dire consequences and also firing just to spread fear, terror and insecurity in general public, when the complainant went to police station for releasing the detenu---In the present case, it appeared that there were material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which were fatal to the prosecution and created doubts in the prosecution case---Witness in cross-examination deposed that detenu was tied in a room of hospital---Said fact was belied by the detenu himself in his cross-examination wherein he admitted that he was confined in the quarter of S.H.O. and was sitting on a cot and not tied but door was closed---In their statements the said witnesses also contradicted each other, inasmuch as, according to peon of complainant / witness, detenu was confined in a room of hospital, whereas detenu deposed that he was confined in the quarter of S.H.O.---According to complainant of other FIR, in his presence the accused along with others took away detenu by dragging and maltreating him, whereas detenu had belied such statement by admitting in his cross-examination that said complainant was not available at his house when he was apprehended---Complainant in the FIR as well as in his evidence had categorically stated that detenu was kidnapped by accused which statement was belied by detenu himself while he made admission in his…