Find a Lawyer

AHMAD KHAN versus STATE

The testimony of the Section 16 evidence was filed three months after the FIR incident and that too after the recovery of the alleged kidnapper, the confession of the alleged kidnapper was filed 8/9 months after the recovery and the magistrate Had recorded a confession offense, do not remember if the alleged kidnapper was confessed to have committed the crime or did not seek the investigating officer, it was the effect that the alleged kidnapper voluntarily went with the accused and the alleged kidnapper. In her interim test, the husband also stated that he did not know if she had an illicit relationship. The medical report, along with any of the suspects, also revealed that no trace of violence was found on the body of the alleged kidnapper and no blood or semen was found. No guns or sticks were recovered from the possession of any of the suspects, for the first time, any of the women taking or persuading, and secondly, for success under Section 16 of the Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement Hoodoo) Ordinance, 1979. That she would have illicit relations with anyone. Unless the two conditions exist, punishment for the offenders under section 16 under the Enforcement Hood Ordinance cannot be granted, the 1979 trial court found the accused under sections 10 (2) and 11 of the adultery. Had done worse. ) The ordinance, 1979, failed to establish the prosecution that the accused had incited the alleged kidnapper. When she was arrested by police at the behest of the complainant, she was seen walking with her juvenile to a public place along with the suspects. If the accused intended to kidnap her, she would not take him with her. N to prove the accused's intention divorce advocates from Kachhi/Bolan lawyer