JAFAR HUSSAIN SHAH versus THE STATE
Sections 5 (2) (a) and 5 (2) (b) of the Contempt Clause (XLV of 1860), section 494, did not constitute evidence of the crime of adultery in examining the evidence case as per the section of the Ordinance Procedure of Tazkiyah al-Shudh. 8 was required. The existence of a marriage contract between the accused was not only proved by the defense but also by the complainant, and such grounds were sufficient to protect the accused from the 'limit of punishment', There was no guarantee. Even though there was no evidence that the accused could be held responsible for the azir trader / pregnancy but the pregnancy period could not be determined and thus it could not be decided whether the accused were living together or physically committing the crime. Did not indicate it was due to the same record. Sexual intercourse was recently defaced in the medical report and no direct evidence was available about its commission.
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
power of attorney advocate Khairpur Nathan Shah lawyer
