Clause 10 adultery Bill is responsible for defining evidence The benefit of the suspect was not only an unforeseen delay in filing a lawsuit by the complainant, but also because the complainant, who was the brother of the alleged victim, was unnatural. And he was not convinced that the medical examiner was examined six days after his recovery. And the Lady Doctor did not find any signs of injury or torture on the bodies of the victims, despite their allegations that she was subjected to adultery and physical beatings during the abduction. Yes, his eyewitness is no eyewitness. An adulteration commission was available to anyone with the victim, until the broom, which was taken from the victim's vagina at the time of her medical examination, was not sent to the victim's chemical inspector's statement. It was not true or reliable because he neither raised any noise, nor attempted to flee, nor contacted his brother, nor was the police complainant, despite moving from one place to another. The alleged victim's age was 13/14 years, while in the Medico legal document, he was 16 years old, according to the victim's statement, During various occasions, the adulterers were subjected to rape, but no reports were made of them. No chemical examiner of any of the accused, nor a blood / semen group or a DNA test. The sole evidence of the testimony was neither credible nor affected by any conviction, nor is it supported by any medical evidence whenever any uncertainty arises in any case relating to the commission of a crime.
