Find a Lawyer

SANAULLAH versus THE STATE

Section 2302 (b) / 4 364/5 395/1212 evidence Evidence was given to prosecute and prosecute the defendants to prove their case. Prosecutors' testimony revealed that none of them knew the suspect prior to the incident and for the first time he saw her on the day of the incident, the accused, after his arrest, examined the identity parade. No evidence was taken and on the basis of such evidence, it would be unsafe to rely on the statements of those witnesses, a prosecution witness identified the accused during the trial, but such identification took place about five to five years. Not reliable even after being enabled. Until the deceased was put to death and no closeness was given between death and last seen. On the statement of the police officers, while the lambardar and other respected persons of the village were available at the relevant time, none of them were included in the recovery process, police officials said, though the accused were falsely involved. There was no personal fault, but in these cases it would be unsafe to rely on the single statements of police personnel to prove a crime if the case was proven to be a crime. The co-accused never led to the recovery of the deceased relative, nor was there any direct evidence on record to link him to the murder of the deceased. The van belonging to the alleged occupant of the suspect was not enough to link him to the commission of the crime, the statements of the prosecution witnesses suggest that the accused was taken to the scene where the accused was allegedly taken. advocate for immigration from Kumbh lawyer