Find a Lawyer

KARAM HUSSAIN ALIAS KARMA versus THE STATE

Vulnerability of Section 7 Off7 of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (1979 1979 1979 VII of 1979), validating the value of Section 12 Evidence abolished the same evidence of abduction (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 to attract Section 12 of adultery. The persons who were brought to trial in the case against the accused, while denying the evidence or material of the two accompanying accused, they convicted the accused on the strength of the same material under Section 12 (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979. Sentenced to action. Although it has been shown that the location of the incident was some distance from the victim's place of work, there is no positive and concrete evidence that shows the victim was forcibly taken away or removed. Went or was seduced by the accused, bound for prosecution. To prove any suspicion and any suspicion arising from the prosecution's version, the accused had to be escalated to the accused for the absence of direct and concrete action, for example, about the abduction or abduction of the victims. , Under section 12 of the Adultery of the Crime (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979, the defendant would be found guilty, however, he was still subjected to unnatural crime, and was brought for the same purpose. , But being kidnapped or kidnapped for free crime requires legal evidence to maintain his conviction. Caution and caution have been demanded that there were situations which were identified and indicated that the victim was brought into the field under some force or force, but no positive or concrete evidence. No was brought to the record in this regard. The crime of adultery (Enforcer) immigration advocate from Kot Mithan lawyer