Find a Lawyer

ABDUL BARI versus STATE

Articles 380 and 457 were not immediately reported to police regarding the definition of evidence. About 12 12/13 days after the incident when the complainant filed his report to the police without naming anyone, such delay in reporting the case was very material in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the accused was charged Was convicted for the cause. After 7/8 days of police custody on the recovery of some alleged stolen property on his alleged confessional statement and identification, the culprit was produced before the magistrate for making a confessional statement, in such prolonged detention, the police arrested himself in the third degree. The method was identified to use. The defendant's confessional statement was recorded by the magistrate on a sworn affidavit that was illegal and could not be accepted. The recovery of stolen articles on the suspect's identity was not suspected because the alleged confiscation was only a small piece of stolen property. Related to items such as women's clothing and some documents, which were also reportedly recovered from the forest 5 days after the arrest, the suspect said neither the clothing was displayed in the case nor was the accused in the recovery memo. And the taxi driver had a description of the color / print that revealed it He had brought three suspects to the complainant's village at night. When the other co-accused was already acquitted at the trial, the accused could not be properly linked to the commission of the crime only on the basis of his alleged confessional statement and identification memo, when such The evidence was not admissible under the law. Without any reasonable doubt, no alternative was found, the accused said when you need a advocate from Upper Deval lawyer