Find a Lawyer

SULKHAN MASIH versus STATE

The crime of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10 (2), the day, time and place of origin of the evidence, the eye witnesses agreed that their statements did not contradict the nature of the case. Medical evidence was also supported by the prosecution case and in the chemical Examiner's report there was no benefit to the marriage taken by the accused and it appeared to be serious and unjustified because it did not take place during the police investigation or No trial was taken during the trial and no advice was given. The defendant was convicted of the crime by his defense of the witnesses and consequently the defendant was kept in prison, however, on the basis of the notice, provided under section 10 (2), But from twenty to thirty streams were increased. The enhancement already issued to the accused immigration advocates phone number from Bhimbar lawyer