Find a Lawyer

SAEED AHMAD versus THE STATE

Section 7 377 (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance of Adultery (1979 1979 1979 VII), Section 10 (3) / 11/12 Definition of evidence, reduction of sentence, no reason for the prosecution's witnesses' disbelief was available because they The accused was no enmity with the delay. Although there was no enmity between the parties, filing an FIR was not important as the story of the accused being falsified was evidenced by the medical evidence and the chemical inspector's report. Though he was about 16 16 years old. The year at the time of the incident, but according to the Medico Legal Report, he could not prove to the strong prosecution that the two minor victims were abducted under sections 11 and 12 of the Crimes (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, in these circumstances not excluded. The accused was acquitted of the charges under Articles 11 and 12 of the ordinance, and the trial court convicted the accused, not seeing the prosecution's witnesses committing crimes with the victim Victim. He was ten years old and was not produced during the trial and medical evidence did not show that he was physically The suspect was subjected, in the circumstances, to the accused and was acquitted of the charges under Section 777777, PPC and the accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 7 377, P.P. C conclusively concludes the Molecular Evidence, Medical Legal Report and Chemical Examiner's report that the victim was raped, the accused was sentenced. Ordinance, 1979, under section 10 (3) of the offense of adultery, was charged when he was 16 years old best law firm from FR Kohat lawyer