Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR ALIAS MUKHI versus THE STATE

The Criminal Procedure for Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 10 (4) and 11 The hearing of the evidence was not relied upon by the complainant's statement and another victim of the prosecution denied the victim to the extent of adultery. Was not done On the sole statement of the affected High Court, the trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused by the trial court under the Enforcement Hood (Ordinance) Ordinance, 1979, and the complaint against the accused was denied. The victim remained with her family for three days; the victim's statement was recorded by the police three days after her recovery. There was no explanation given by the police about the delayed recording of her statement. The police could not be denied, even though the trial court had denied the victim's reference to the Zila Commission. The victim's child was not a true witness as he made a contradictory statement before the trial court's defense witness. There was a member of the monitoring team who recorded his earlier statement, which he later denied, had made a statement before the trial court that record of his first statement in the presence of the monitoring team members of the affected person. There is a need for independent co-operation, which, although present in the form of three persons, with the prosecution, The witness presented to the defendant is yet to be the best witness to prove the accused's alleged retrieval from the accused; if any, he was neither presented by the prosecution nor investigated. His statements were recorded by police during the course of the incident, so the best way to prove the charges law websites from Manga Mandi lawyer