Find a Lawyer

GHULAM YASIN versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 354 of the Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 10 bail, and further inquiries grant that four persons, including the accused, were convicted Rape with wife, alternately, but negation of the Medical Legal Certificate and the Prosecutor's Edition of the Chemical Examiner, thereafter excluded from Section 10 (Enforcement Hood), Ordinance, 1979, however, of Section 354A. Under, the PPC was included, first, indicating that the Investigation Agency denied the version of the alleged rape charge, in such a case, an injury. Shall be taken with salt whether under Section 354A, the offense was committed under PPC? Or was it simply a matter of commission under section 354, PPC, that would require further inquiry which recorded the statements of two women allegedly with the affected woman at the time of the incident, 14 days later? ? The contents of the FIR filing, FIR, indicate that the crime of removing the victim's clothes was not seen by him, two women said that the accused belonged to the family. A large number of the bodies of the men were wrapped, moreover, because of the background of the incident, which is only mentioned in the FIR, it does not rule out the possibility of the accused being trapped for expanding the network. Can the accused be given the benefit of the doubt even at the stage of bail, otherwise, even after the grant of false amnesty from the bail, the accused may be sentenced and sentenced. If the litigation to be paid reasonable compensation, but innocent, pre-trial immigration advocate from Gari Mori lawyer