Find a Lawyer

LAL MUHAMMAD versus STATE

The offense of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 section 10 (3) and 18 was sufficiently explained to delay the reporting of the testimony of evidence, which cannot be ignored as well as the medical evidence of the victim. When there is no conflict. Medical and other evidence found. It has been alleged that he is a hard and frustrated criminal who is in any way capable of making his choice and has no regard for the tradition or the law. Was. They cannot be excused because of allegations that existed between the parties, especially when the evidence of the victim was fully verified by medical and ocular evidence, because of the group's alleged long-standing enmity between the parties. The defendant was negligent in purchasing the semen to make the arrest and match the serologist. The kind that could upset the case of litigation when the victim's evidence had the full backing of the medical and ocular avenue After the penetration into the dense section, the enforcement of the Adulteration (Enforcement Hoodood) Ordinance against the accused Was registered under section 10 (3) of 1979 and not under section 18, his accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly. registration advocate from Morgah lawyer