Section 7 377 Penalty (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (of VII of 1979 1979), Section 12 unnatural crime, testimony of the abduction testimony Both eyewitnesses provided accurate and unambiguous account of the incident and their evidence Confidence in which there was no material contradiction. The aforementioned eyewitness complainant, who was the victim's father, did not have any enmity or any strong motive that he would be falsely involved in the case. The victim's father will not substitute the culprit of the case. Explain the presence of the accused at the appropriate place. There was no reason for the victim to be in a questionable state, and not to accept his statement, which was not scattered in cross-examination. The other independent witness, too, had no enmity with the accusation of false expulsion against him, saying that the testimony remained on the testimony despite his cross. On examination, they confirmed the witness's statement at the main point and proved the accused's presence on the spot. The prosecution completed its case against the accused by means of free and unverifiable evidence against the accused under Section 7777, PPC. But was charged under section 1212. The Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979, has not been convicted for seven years \ RI up to a fine of Rs 10,000, the pursuit of justice will be met \ r \ n
