Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SALEEM ARSHAD versus STATE

Definitions of Sections 10 (2) and 16 Evidence T On the one hand, the trial court rightly found that the accused did not abduct the accompanying accused and was charged with the offense under section 16 under the Zina (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979. Cannot import, but was in error. Since the female co-accused was in close proximity with the male accused, she was accompanied by an adultery party, in the present case, none of the witnesses had accused Zina Bill Raza, except by the complainant. The common accusation of adultery, a woman's husband's co-accused, would be a grave mistake to assume that if a married woman voluntarily left her house in the company of another man, he intended to accompany her. Commit adultery Similarly, it would be wrong to say that if a man went to a married woman to help her or otherwise intended to commit adultery with his lady accused, he would be accompanied by his two daughters. She had left her house, which would have been quite old at her age. Married 20/22 years ago to the complainant Unless the first adulteration of adultery has been established between the man and the woman, the medical or chemical report itself will have no identifiable value. The co-accused was a married woman and the lady doctor. There was evidence that the sex was established with him and according to the chemical report, the bushes taken from him were found to be contaminated with semen. There was no nexus with the medical officer's report that the accused was sexually assaulted. Apparently, there was no grouping of money during the interrogation, which was disputed by the trial court established by criminal justice. The sheer volume of the sun top advocate from Bhirya Road lawyer