Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE versus STATE

The section 328 Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), section 10 (2) (3), the definition of evidence, does nothing to confirm that the missing child was or was the daughter of the female accused. The relationship between the accused persons that the child was born sexually since it could not be proved that the two accused were the parents of the child, therefore the question of litigation against them under the section 8328, PPC was hardly raised. Because the condition of her request was that the child be exposed or abandoned by the father. The mother prosecutor herself had stated before the prosecution's testimony that she had not been subjected to adultery by the male accused, but she did not confess to the criminal magistrate about her crime. Did not see each other committing adultery. The accused persons, being non-professionals, were found not guilty under the circumstances under section 10 (3) of the Adultery (Enforcement Hood Ment) Ordinance. Enka, 1979 Immoral statements of female accused cannot be considered as evidence of a serious nature of the nature of the offense against the male accused. When an accused acquits himself in a crime, then the serious nature of the statement against his co-accused. Has no identifying value. Both the accused were bound to ignore the statements of mutual self-incrimination, misconceptions / speculation decisions in the circumstances could not be due to the factual aspects of the case and misinterpretation of the questions involved in the case / wrong aspects of the law. Are. It is maintained that both appeals were accepted and the trial court convicted and sentenced, setting aside them. when you need a advocate from Kot Addu lawyer