Clauses 2 b2 (b) / & 34 & 4 32 // 34 ???? Appreciating the evidence The complainant, the deceased's real brother, who had the prosecution's case on the statement alone, was not present at the time of the incident and Had witnessed the same medical. The evidence defied ocular testimony of the complainant's FIR after the initial investigation did not constitute a defect, and thus mentioned the names of the accused along with the named characters in the first-hand information. Could not be taken as such. Upon seeing the incident, a number of complainant villagers, no independent and unwanted witnesses from the area, were presented in the prosecution case at trial, triggering a motive against the accused in the killing of the victim. Was not proven to be forgiving. Those recovered were not sent to the firearms specialist and in the absence of clarification, the investigating officer was extremely deadly in the prosecution of such wrongdoing alone, without proof that the accused was a fugitive. May be. The complainant's statement was not of material assistance or assistance from an independent source, based on an incorrect decision and non-recourse of evidence resulting from a misreading. The accused was acquitted in the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
