Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), the appreciation of section 161 evidence was nothing to prove that in the presence of any witness, no amount of money was paid to the accused. The tainted money was recovered from the possession of, the prosecutor relied on. The complainant's statement which was neither endorsed nor supported by any piece of evidence, it was unsafe to rely on such evidence as the evidence of the magistrate and the police officer who raided it. Yes, it did show that a raiding party was formed, but the raiding party did not want to protect the money from the accused's possession, but the presence of the prosecution witness with the raiding party was reasonably well established. Was not done - In view of the defects in the prosecution case, the Assistant Advocate General did not support the impugned verdict. Due to the overwhelming suspicion against the accused, he was entitled to take advantage of the doubt which was given to him \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
