Find a Lawyer

GULAB versus THE STATE

Section 302 / 337a (i) / 337f (i) / 337d (i) / 337h (ii) / 147/148/149 Criminal Code (V 1898) Articles 221 and 222 defining evidence were two cases of police. Was registered at the station, and the second case was the result of a direct complaint, while the second case was a counter-case in which the common charge was appointed, registered at the police station, and a private complaint when the counter-case was separated. Two cases were underway when the charge was made. Simultaneously and witnesses were examined separately in each case, but at the end of the trial of both cases, the cases were settled by a common verdict and the accused were convicted, in which case there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Because evidence of one case was found. In the second read and an important point was presented at one of the points and in each case a common point was charged which did not meet the requirements of Sections 221 and 222, as numerous as the CRPC. Different crimes went unnoticed in the same tradition. g Particular details and clarifications are required. Such defects went to the root of the case and affected the merits of the trial under which the failure of justice was granted. , Conviction and sentencing were set aside and remand was granted for trial. According to the law from the stage of preparation of the charge registration advocate from Sangote lawyer