Section 6868/1 47 Z and 4 494 Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979 1979), Section 10 (2) to be used as a forged document for fraudulent purposes, During the life of the husband or wife, the evidence of remarriage and adultery was not an immediate witness to the actual process of the alleged incident of adultery and his statement about the incident of adultery was based on hearing. The father of the alleged victim / co-accused was not witness to the alleged presence of the adulteress who directly linked the case, he did not file an FLR / private complaint Nor did the prosecutor's witness in the case present as a co-accused (alleged victim) while recording his statement under Section 342, the CCP stated that the accused was her husband. The ex-husband had divorced her with the accused before the marriage, and after her divorce his maternal uncle / complainant had borrowed Rs 50,000 from the accused's father and due to her greed he had given her the accused's wife. Attached, but later due to his bad intentions / matter, he refused to lend his hand to the accused and at the time of filing the FIR, he was involved with the accused complainant. Free consent married, he told himself that the co-accused to trial three months ago her ex-husband to enter had divorced. FIR would have been attracted by Section 494, PPC, if the marriage between the accused and the co-accused was declared "void", which was not the case here, then the complainant would, beyond any doubt, be against the accused. Was unable to prove his case, because of his conviction and sentence
