KAMAL ATHAR versus STATE
The crime of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 10 (3), 11 and 10 (3) / 18 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 34 Evidence was not charged with any animosity or intent. Between and less did not prove. There is no doubt that the victim or the eyewitness, who had no reason to release the real culprits and replace them with the accused, could not possibly be investigated as to the authenticity of the victim. Because the delay in filing the FIR was properly stated by the prosecution involved. In this case, the accused was also thoroughly corroborated by medical evidence, so under Section 11 of the ordinance was properly sentenced which not only speaks of abduction but also accuses the abductor As a result, his sentence has decreased somewhat.
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
online advocate from Kharian lawyer
