Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAZIR versus STATE

Sections 11 and 10 (4) were punished for appreciating the evidence, the defendant was not challenged to go to the defendant's home on the day of the mitigation, in addition to his own statement to the abductor. Also had full support. And an independent witness nearby, who saw the kidnappers dragging the wagon into the wagon, was carrying a firearm with a pistol and, under section 64, of the alleged abductor, CRPC. Under his statement the gun was recovered. The court categorically stated that after the accused had taken him to various places, he had been subjected to adultery and his resistance had targeted him with a hot iron rod, medical evidence abducted. Was fully supported. The kidnapper whose testimony turned out to be an irrevocable and irrevocable crime based on the eyewitness account and circumstantial evidence was retained under section 11 of the Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, but the aforesaid ordinance Under Section 10 (4), his death sentence was commuted to prison, which resulted in the dismissal of his appeal. Accordingly solicitors from Minchanabad lawyer