Find a Lawyer

WASEEMUDDIN versus STATE

There was a contradiction between the statement under Section 154 of the definition of evidence 392/34, the identification parade between the CCP prosecution witness and his statement before the court was not held and the accused complained to the court. The driver was involved in an indication that it was not. The recovery of stolen articles according to the procedure prescribed in the relevant law was not followed by the procedure prescribed under Section 103, CRPC and the stolen articles allegedly recovered from the trial court. Was not identified and stated that there were no articles. Submitted before the court, nor was he facing retrieval of stolen articles, while recording his statement under Section 22 under, the CC Investigation Officer and other public witnesses were not presented before the court. And the prosecution was stopped without recording their evidence. Despite the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its prosecution without any doubt, the trial court, without any reasonable reasons, recorded that the prosecution found that the prosecution was guilty under sections 392 and 34, P.P.C. Having proved his case and given the verdict of the accused, the situation could not be maintained. The penalty, which is paid by the accused, can be refunded \ r \ n \ r \ n how to become a advocate from Mithi lawyer