appeal court under article 157 G.J and supported the conviction and judgment under article 160 G.J. and therefore, this application. After reviewing the report, I conclude to the validity of the judgment issued by the appeal court. First: It had been established that the convict had insulted the applicant, and the validity of the convict and penalty under article 160 G.J. for the year 1991. Second: As to the conviction under article 157 G.J. and as the appeal court had stated, that insulting is a crime, and such crimes are included under article (3) G.J. which as ‘Drinking of Alcohol, Apostasy, Fornication, Insulting, Accusation, Causing Conflict and Stealing)  Subject to Article 63 of the Evidence Act stipulates “Subject to article 62," Proving the crime of adultery" All Shari’a Hidood [Islamic Penalties] shall be established in either of the following ways: 1. The explicit acknowledgment, even for once before the court. 2. The testimony of two male witnesses, as evidenced also by the testimony of a man and two women, or four women. " And whereas the accusation of “the accused being caught with the man whom she was forced to marry” this statement does not have any weight, except a hint to an adultery accusation, and establishing such a hint is only possible through the convict’s acknowledgment of the act of adultery; or only by the testimony of two male witnesses, or one male witness and two female witnesses, or four female witnesses which is not available in this case. And the non-availability of such witnesses denies the criminal Had [Islamic Penalty] for failure to establish the crime, due to lack of evidence, which is required by the law. Therefore, there is no room for going further with the case; and since this was the essence of the appeal court, its ruling shall thus be deemed as consistent with the law. This ruling is subject to the consent of my honorable colleagues. 1. Agree with the appeals court’s decision 2. Parties shall be notified And God’s help and guidance we seek (signature) Dalya Basheer Siraj Supreme Court Judge 10/1/2017 Second Opinion: I agree and approve of the above mentioned (signature) Adam Ismail Adam Supreme Court Judge 11/1/2017