Sections 302 (b), 34 and 377 of the offense of adultery (Enforcement Hoodoo Ordinance (VII of 1979), section 12 convictions, common intentions, unnatural offenses, kidnapping or kidnapping or evidence of a person being subjected to unnatural lust) Definition of presence was an unexpected event and the prosecutor relied primarily on the final evidence. The complainant did not report to the police for nearly five days after the disappearance of his son and only reported on the recovery of the victim's body. Given that such a silence was part of the complainant was beyond a comprehensible fact as the matter was not immediately reported to the police, The evidence surrounding the prosecution's testimony was neither trustworthy nor strong enough to lure the accused to the commission of the crime. It was alleged that the accused was acquitted of the charges under Se under Section 12 and Section 377 of the Zen Information Hood Ordinance, 1979, and it was not clear which of the three accomplices was involved. The original commission of the crime (murder) played a role because the prosecutor did not assign any particular role to any of the accused, but he could not conclude that He was the accused. The three accused, who were exclusively responsible for the commission of the murder trial of the deceased trial court, relied on the last filed evidence of the prosecution's witnesses to justify the sentence, which was full of contradictions. And it also had the benefit of the doubt. In addition to writing some lines about the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the accused must go to the trial court, nothing
