Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHID versus STATE

Sections 7 J7 J and 7 377 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (of VII of 1979), Section 12 was defined as evidence but no mini-group was conducted in this case and Victim was clinically examined and related. The doctor's report was positive. After verifying the medical opinion it was established that the victim's father had been subjected to physical abuse of the complainant, as he could not be believed, standing outside the house and not the relevant witness. The victim may have been poisoned and intoxicated. It appears that the complainant did not provide the correct statement. After dismissing the complainant's statement there was a victim's statement which was credible and reliable and the accused had no reason to deny the same offense. In the circumstances, the victim's statement may be based on Not his father, who claimed to be an eyewitness, Victim faced a lengthy test, but he stood his test and was not contested, it is alleged, The crime was committed in the case. According to the Chemical Examiner's report, the victim's stomach wash did not detect any poison. The kite-makers where they committed fornication with him, the provisions of Section 12 of the Xena crime (enforcement o f Hodgood) Ordinance, 1979, would not apply because the suspects had snatched away the victim for sexual misconduct and Was not kidnapped. The accused is charged with Section 377, PPC pakistani advocates Bisham lawyer