KASHIF IKRAM versus THE STATE
Section 7 377 Fines (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979I), Section 12 Evidence, which was the father of the deceased boy, was examined, he was given to Section HO by him. The contents of the application were reiterated, but at the end of the investigation, he said that the accused in the court had not committed an unnatural crime with his son. The complaint was dismissed and he was subjected to cross examination. The complainant's statement did not lose its significance and relevance, and during the course of the investigation, the complainant confessed to being the arrested suspect and also that he had complained that the accused had committed adultery with his son.
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
immigration advocates email from Topi lawyer
