MUKHTAR AHMAD versus THE STATE
Crimes of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 10 (3) and 11, the accused was not appreciated for any role The accused was not named in the FIR The accused reported presence in the girl's house The co-accused and the facilitator in his recovery were not charged with any criminal action, except for the purpose of sexual intercourse without any feedback from the victim who helped the accused put her in the vehicle. In no case was the participation of the accused or otherwise. Since the accused was not clearly aware of the victim, the possibility of making a mistake in naming the girl's accused cannot be ruled out. The question is whether the grown-up victim voluntarily supports the principal accused or gives it to her. The healthy participant was physically acquitted by the accused and put in the vehicle against him, his will was debatable.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top advocates from Darya Khan lawyer
