Find a Lawyer

KAMRAN KHAN versus THE STATE

The Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, 10 (2) and 13, appeared to support the prosecution's testimony of adultery, although the incident allegedly occurred on a broad day in a very busy area of cantonment. That is, the material details of both of the prosecution's witnesses contradict each other, and there is material improvement in the prosecution's evidence that appears negatively on it. The investigation is honest and after such deliberation and consultation, the medical evidence and the Chemical Examiner's report did not support the prosecution's case, the trial court ruled on the heritage of the prosecution witnesses Was accepted accordingly but he failed to diagnose it along with the defense. The version and the statement of the prosecution in their cross-examination of the witnesses' statements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses contradicted the material contradictions brought to the notice of their testimony under section 161, CR PC, with which the witnesses The competition was done, they were not even considered. The medical report was also ignored and the Chemical Examiner's findings regarding alleged suspected mini-scam articles taken by the Investigation Officer at the time of the arrest of the accused by the Investigation Officer were based on the prosecution's testimony on the original version. The outward material improvement was badly demonstrated. On his credit, he was not considered to be the main culprit of the entire incident which allegedly provided the female accused to the accused, who was not specifically named in the FIR nor was arrested. Neither was they involved in the investigation online advocate from Mithi lawyer