Find a Lawyer

UMAR DRAZ versus THE STATE

Definitions of Sections 10 (4) and 11 of the FIR were not properly explained in the FIR registration, but the victim's broken bangles were not mentioned in the FIR, both of the prosecution witnesses who were affected The girl was a maternal uncle, did not see that any of the accused had committed sexual relations with the victim and the conduct of the witnesses was unnatural as they did not try to apprehend the accused even though none of the accused were on fire. Was not equipped, not even a single notch was found on any part of it. The victim's body alleged that she showed the lady doctor stained clothes with semen, which, upon medical examination, alleged that her shirt was torn during an elephant pie, but neither burst. Neither Hume's shirt nor Shalwar stained the mini, evidence on record by police showed that the complainant was a family of criminals and that the alleged victim was a girl, according to the search of Range Crime Police. Is the matter also investigated by the Range Crime Police under the DLG order and after approval of the investigation, D LG directed section 10 (4) to be abandoned. , Crime, Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979, and that the affected girl should also be cheated in this case, the victim girl was not available on the court statements, in case of death sentence, it was to be seen. Whether a collusion was available or not, and all the chains had to be linked in such a way that the court could only conclude that he / she could be accused of being the actual culprit, but they were all guilty. immigration advocates from Quetta lawyer