QAMAR ZAMAN versus THE STATE
The Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10 (3) and 18 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 354 evidence should be appreciated, neither at the time of filing the FIR nor by the accused in the case. An action source was calculated. To show that the attempted rape was committed by the alleged sister by the complainant who appeared as the prosecutor's witness. Instead, they also said that the accused had tried to soften the complainant, as well as the position and stand of the father of the complainant and the prosecution's witnesses, in the circumstances, against the accused. ) And was unable to prove a case under 18. From the material evidence found on the Record of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979 and on the record it is found that the accused had proved the offense under Sections 10 (3) and 18 of the Act under Sections 354, PPC. Was set aside and instead he was convicted and sentenced under Section 354, PPC.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
list of supreme court advocates from Hyderabad lawyer
