In reviewing the evidence against section 439 of the Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), sections 302, 148 and 149, the court thoroughly reviewed the available evidence on the record and concluded that whenever an accused was found guilty If bad, the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused. If accused, he will think twice about innocence. Once before this trial and the second, the event of his acquittal could be available on the Eid day, on the big day, in the village, and in the independent witness. But no one was examined by the prosecution, who said it was an unseen crime. The name of the prosecution witness, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, was missing in the FIR and it appears that he was subsequently obtained to support the prosecution's version. The complainant was also unable to calculate his presence at the relevant time. The ocular account submitted by the witnesses was denied by the trial court for valid reasons which was not open for valid exceptions; the opportunity witness, close relation to the accused. Of particular importance, his testimony cannot be relied upon in the absence of irrevocable seriousness. The prosecutor does not have to set any motive and if so, fails to establish it. Will have to face that the identity of the perpetrators cannot be established Evidence, however, can raise suspicions against it, but suspicion cannot replace evidence, and real evidence cannot be substituted, and in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, this evidence, even if it is convincing. If so, it's yourself
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
