Find a Lawyer

NADEEM ALIAS DHEMU versus STATE

Section 10 (4) (3) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Articles 37, 449 and 337 J, reduction of FIR on conviction, delay of two days for recording the statements of victims by police. , Doctors' report inspector and serologist proved that the victims were drugged under the application of sections (3) and (4) of the provisions of sections 10 (3) and (4) of the offense of adultery (section 10). Went and was targeted. The sisters and their brother accused the accused and the appellant of sweetening the drug, and then sexually assaulted the two sisters and their brother, while the three were unconscious. The suspect was lodged by KK's brother when the two accused appeared to be extraordinary, with the former trial court convicted under Section 10 (4) of the Penalty for Enforcement Hood (Enforcement Hood) ordinance. In 1979, and each of them was sentenced to death, the suspects were also sentenced under section 449 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. , Was convicted under the PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three days after the incident, suspects and statements on the victims were recorded. The effect of the drugs did not last for three days, after police stopped recording their statements. That the victims' statements were not contradictory. That the victims had no signs of violence or resistance and that their confession to go back to sleep after the incident was not consistent with the allegations of rape. The incident, however, was suspected when the victims filed a vacancy in the FIR when you need a advocate from Charsada lawyer