Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HABIB versus THE STATE

Section 7 377/1111 / / Z34 Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (1979 VII of 1979, 1979), the value of section 12 evidence was almost immediate and unnecessary delay in the filing of the FIR FIR while one kilo from the police station venue. Was meters away. After the incident took place, there was in fact a real suspicion and the accuracy of the prosecution's version came to the complainant's knowledge the very next day, and the accused apologized to the complainant and the complainant complained Tolerant of all proceedings, such as the Comp complainant, ideally set up a specific claim that he went to the police station, rejected his statement, which the police officer said was read and read to him. Pointing to authenticity, the statement was not available on file, in which case the circumstances were sufficient. To show that the complainant was a liar, he was a boy himself and he had falsified the contents of the FIR, stating that the accused did not commit any harm to him. The doctor who performed the medical examination of the affected boy was not presented to the court while the medical report was available on file. The doctor was discharged only because the contents of the medical report were filed by the prosecution. Has broken. There are no signs or symptoms of sodomy and no injuries were reported around the boy's anus. The doctor did not even feel the need to take anal flags because he was so sure of the affected boy's lack of sodomy, as mentioned in the FIR, according to prosecutor's testimony that Body how to become a advocate from Balakot lawyer