Find a Lawyer

RAHIM BUX versus STATE

Section 1 361 and 5 365 of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) definition of the testimony of the accused Section 17 (3) of the Crimes against Property (Enforcement Ordinance) Ordinance, 1979, Was acquitted of the charge. But he was found guilty under Section 656565A, the PPC's acknowledgment that the alleged kidnapper had fully supported the defense's version of the alleged kidnapping that the parents of the alleged kidnappers allegedly accused their daughter in marriage. Had agreed to marry her brother. The statement that the accused had never been abducted and said that she was connected with the brother of the accused by her father and that the mother was allegedly abducted by the abductor that she had two children after her marriage. Was born and his younger brother came with him at that time. She went to see her mother after her marriage. And that his mother after the death of her husband (the father of the alleged kidnapper). After contracting a second marriage, said that the minor brother was living with her / the alleged kidnapper accused was acquitted of the charge under section 17 (3) of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance 1979, The components of the offense are punishable under Sections 361 and 365A, PPC. After the trial was not settled, the accused did not commit any crime through the trial court and the accused was convicted, separated and the accused was acquitted. \ R \ n law firms from Khoski lawyer