Section 302 (b) / 34 FIR of testimony was lodged by the complainant, the brother of the complainant's complainant who was not satisfied with the police investigation, filed a private complaint, proceeding both cases simultaneously. Went to trial and the trial court convicted the accused under section 102 (b), with the PPC in the private complaint, directing the victim's legal heirs to pay compensation, for the first time with the prosecution's witness's eyes. Claimed to be a witness who was clearly at odds with the FIR and the complaint. In the incident, the accused was not free of suspicion. A year and a half after the incident, a private complaint was filed by the complainant. Would demand the murder and it was unbelievable that if the police had not properly registered the FIR and had not properly investigated the case, the complainant Ramem Mum would have started the trial for a year and a half. Even then, he should have waited to be charged for filing a private complaint, the prosecution's witness, who was the defendant's cousin, and the complaint Nanda had made material improvements to his statement during the trial and was not a resident of the location and there was no viable reason for his presence on the spot. The motive for the incident was not proved until the trial. The accused was not released from doubt, conviction and sentence by the court; he was set free and he was acquitted and released.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
