PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Note) 17 Judgment Sec 365-A PPC & Sec 34 PPC, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)– Ss. 7(1)(c) & 7(2)–Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A & 34–Conviction and sentence–Challenge to–Benefit of doubt–Unexplained delay–Confessional statement–Identification parade–Prosecution case is based on the following pieces of evidence: i.Statement of the alleged abductee; ii.Retracted confessional statement of the appellant; and iii.Identification of the appellant by the alleged abductee. Held: It is well settled principle of law that if a best piece of evidence is available with a party and same is withheld by him, the presumption as enumerated under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 come into play–The presumption will ultimately be drawn against the prosecution that the said witness(s) was/were not supporting the complainant’s/prosecution version–As far as identification of the appellant by the PW is concerned, the record reveals that after 13th day of his arrest, the appellant was put to a test of identification parade in presence of Judicial Magistrate, Chaman–Though the appellant was identified by PW, but the identification parade memo. reveals that the appellant was identified by PW without any reference to the role allegedly played by him during the occurrence due to which the identification parade has lost its value–Identification parade has been conducted after 13th day of the arrest of appellant and in such a situation, possibility of the witness having seen the appellant prior to the identification conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, cannot be ruled out–Appeal was accepted.