Find a Lawyer

ABDUS SAMAD versus STATE

Sections 5, 10 (3), 11 and 16 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 368 accused of defining and convicting evidence, which claimed the affected girl to be his lawfully married wife, with whom he The marriage contract was signed almost three years ago. Prior to the incident, after filing a restitution of marital rights against the affected female family court, it was concluded that no marriage or marriage had been committed between the parties, and the court filed by the accused The request was denied by the accused girl regarding her legitimate marriage with the accused, the victim's medico legal report, Chemical Examiner's report and the commission of his sexual relationship with the victim other than the circumstances. No doubt, the accused was convicted of the crime. The prosecution under Sections 5 and 10 of the Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979, for any reason brought the culprits of the offenders into the house of Maura, to the extent that the suspicion was dismissed and the trial against it The court was convicted and imprisoned under sections 10 (3), 11 and 16 of the Adultery (Enforcement of Religion) Ordinance 1979. The penalties for adultery (Enforcement Hood) were not provided under section 10 (3) of the Ordinance 1979, which were kept separately \ r \ n \ r \ n list of supreme court advocates from Karak lawyer