The prosecution's testimony was that the accused was suspicious and the prosecution stated that the suspects were armed and went to the complainant's cattle robbery, but did not do so because of the prosecution's testimony. Also not shown. If the accused had gone without the complainant's cattle, the trial court acquitted all the other accomplices if they had gone to this place for the purpose, but the accused was merely sentenced on the basis that he was present at the complainant's house. The accused had filed a case against them completely. Describing his presence at the complainant's home, in which the complainant himself admitted that there was no other evidence available to prove that the accused was allegedly guilty by the accused in the case, He was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and was sentenced. The trial court set aside the accused and was released on trial.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
