Find a Lawyer

RIAZ AHMAD versus STATE

Section 302 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Sections 11 and 10 (3) Hostility to the false imprints of a victim of adultery who could not present any difficulty in identifying the accused. His statement was not supported by medical evidence, and the eyewitnesses of the Chemical Examiner's report had no intention of making a false statement against the accused, whose testimony was not subject to any legal weakness and should be referred to the magistrate. The two courts below were convinced that all precautions were taken before recording. Recovery of the accused kidnapper and accompanying the accused confessed to the crime before the police had verified the ocular evidence and any legal or factual instability that the accused confessed to. Was not sentenced and sentenced. In the circumstances of the case, the accused was quite appropriate and accordingly the appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 1995

• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. STATE 1995 SCMR 1613
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. STATE 1995 SCMR 1615
• KHUDA BAKHSH v. STATE 1995 SCMR 1621
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ v. NAJEEB ALI 1995 SCMR 1632
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD v. STATE 1995 SCMR 1639
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM 1995 SCMR 1647
• NASEEM AHMAD CHAUDHRY v. CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE 1995 SCMR 1655
• MUSHARAF KHAN v. SHERIN KHAN 1995 SCMR 1661

All Supreme Court judgments of 1995 →

registration advocate from Hariwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes