Find a Lawyer

MASTER KHURSHID ALAM versus INDRIAS MASIH

Sections 10 (3), 11 and 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 203 DD were allegedly accused of committing adultery against a victim who allegedly went missing, but did not seek medical examination. Have not expressed their consent for or have not been defined. For him, it was forthcoming that there was no clear evidence that the adulteress Bill had committed the crime through the accused. The statement made by the alleged victim in the court showed that Has alleged that she accuses Zina Bill of repression at various points against the accused, while in her statement under section 160, the CCP alleged that she was only staying in one place. The accused had said that such disparity had made the litigation suspect suspicious and that there had been a two-month delay in filing an FIR, for which I've not been able to appreciate the explanation. The record, which showed that the FIR was deliberately entered and could not be excluded, after the possibility of false involvement of the accused, as well as the leasing of the land between the accused and the complainant, In return for the money received by the complainant and thus wrongly implicated, the appellant could not identify if the accused had failed to bring the accused to the house and he was rightfully acquitted. ? No misreading / misreading of pieces of evidence that could have influenced an unwarranted decision. The record did not show any proceedings. Prosecutors failed to prove their case against the accused, without doubt. advocate from Sialkot lawyer