Section 7 377 Penalty (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (of 1979 VI VI of VII), Section 12 unnatural offense / offense, conviction of evidence to target person unnatural lust, delay in filing FIR The deficiency was fully described by the complaining physician who inspected the victim the very next day, which would mean that the police may have refused to file an FIR, which, upon receiving the medical certificate of the victim. Was registered, in which case the entry could not be fatal. Particularly when the Victim, who was close to eight years old at the time of the incident, was comfortably explained, before the court was fully involved in the case and the prosecution's witnesses testified Chemical Examiner's report was indicated was found stained with semen and, in the opinion of the doctor, was used to commit sodomy on a defense request taken by the corrupt, not attracted to the mind and his It was later considered that my relationship with the victim could not be blamed for eight years. Usually when the evidence was confirmed by a doctor who examined it, the evidence completely proved that the accused and no one else had. The victim committed the offense under section 777777, in which case the PPC alleged that the victim was passing close to the accused's house when he took her to hear the duck. The Prohibition of Procedure for the Adultery (Enforcement Hodgood) Ordinance, 1979, excuse was not proved and the trial court was found guilty under section 12 of the Adultery
