Articles 7 377 and S 34 sodomy, definition of evidence with common intention. The complainant and the victim, who had committed dishonest improvement in the statement of the victim's father's son, were completely silent about the commission of the unnatural crime. He dismissed only the nude film of the victim, while the witness was also silent about the statement of the victim when he alleged that the accused had been charged, the trial court revealed. On the joint disclosure and joint recovery memo and said that the fraudulent evidence was considered in the affirmation of the other fraud evidence, the trial court failed to consider that neither the joint disclosure, nor the joint recovery memo evidence. The accusation was neither acceptable nor was he able to speak in depth. The testimony of the prosecution was made on very different lines of evidence, regardless of the accusations, the recovery of the allegedly nude film, and the images also required doubt. Have been called pieces of evidence, not reliable and dependable at trial S. The court was not a solid verdict, could not surrender to the robber's opinion and only such opinion was not binding on the court's inding, when the same was presented against the principles of medical jurisprudence, especially when unnatural. If the crime victim's medical examination was not known and determined, then comparing and grouping money, it was important to connect the suspect to the commission of the sodomy offense, which would provide the opinion of the medical witness. Was not charged, in this case, of no cost, in the circumstances under section 777777, offense under PPC, less
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015
