Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus STATE

The Criminal Code of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 451 The Federal Shariah Court's testimony on the close scrutiny of evidence on the charge of adultery and criminal mischief record appeared in this case. Subsequently, the prosecution was found to be a voluntary party for having sex with the accused, which shows that he was found in the Zania Prosecutor's Court by voluntarily presenting himself in the lust of the accused. Had neither compromised nor seriously harmed it. His authenticity, but he found himself liable for litigation for the crime of false accusation, as well as being punished under Section 10 (2) of the Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement Hoodood) Ordinance, 1979, Therefore, the statement of a completely untrustworthy and other eye-witness to the woman, who had made it to the police four or five days after the incident, led her to believe dishonesty correction and to remove any evidence or circumstance It was not confirmed that the prosecutor was a party to consent to the sex, the accused's entry in his room could not be denied because he was charged with criminal offenses. Zama was acquitted. best advocate from Kot Addu lawyer