MST. GUL HAMIDA versus THE STATE
Section 10 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), definition of evidence of 2014, no witness was presented by the prosecution against the accused who witnessed the incident or said he consented to the party. He was disclosed by the FIR at the beginning of the proceedings, alleging that he had been subjected to rape by both male accused and hence he was attacked, Viktim also said. He had previously explained the reasons for not appearing and explained it truthfully. Due to fear and shame, she could not inform her parents or the trial court against another person had speculated that abortion by any unmarried girl is conclusive evidence that she committed adultery. Committed and she was attacked.
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
famous high court advocate from Bolan lawyer
