Find a Lawyer

SALEEM KHAN versus THE STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Section 377 Adultery Fines (Enforcement of Jewish Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 12 Law in the Testimony (10 of 1984)) Article 19 The delay in filing the FIR of the evidence was satisfactory that the medical evidence was not contradictory. Victim not only fully supported the prosecution's case because all the defendants had committed an offense against him, but also dismissed it in a straightforward manner that one of the defendants was taken to the scene of the incident. Was taken under which the Victim was targeted. Was not delivered, the only testimony of the victim affected by that trust was affirmed, that would be sufficient to prove the accused's conviction, and the trial court's prosecution witness correctly believed him. The submission confirmed the statement of the affected disclosure, in which the victim disclosed that the incident was made before the state's prosecution witness regarding the incident, immediately under the influence of the transaction. Was made, that the evidence was accepted under Article 19 of the Law Evidence, 1984, there was no evidence on record that the victim was Or the suspect was falsely implicated by his father. Resolve scores due to prior rivalry or litigation between the parties as alleged by the accused that the abduction of the victim was an individual act of the accused and partly to allow the criminal appeal to the extent of the accused. , The High Court convicted him under Section 12. The Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement of the Jewish) Ordinance, 1979 advocate from Miran Shah lawyer