The testimony of Sections 302 (b), 392 and 324 of the evidence was based on the statement of the Prosecutor's Identification Parade and one of the prosecutor's witnesses who saw the accused while fleeing with the bag, the prosecution's witnesses said material improvements. His statements that were not in accordance with the circumstances of the case, the presence of the witnesses at the time of their occurrence was suspicious and their testimony was nonsense. How is identified. In conducting the identification parade, legal customs were not complied with and the possibility of the accused being shown to witnesses cannot be ruled out. The incident took place on a busy road in broad daylight, even when passers-by received fireworks. He was injured during the robbery, but no witnesses were examined in the case, nor did the prosecution witness, who was a policeman, investigate the case to strengthen and support the prosecution on the occasion of recovery from the crime. Apparently, the suspect had the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted under 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.
