Find a Lawyer

SAIFULLAH versus STATE

The testimony of section 302 (b) of testimony was of benefit to the suspect, and the close association of my witnesses with the deceased was not sufficient to disprove their evidence and to characterize them as interested witnesses, Even if interested witnesses can be trusted. They were able to prove their truth. But in the present case, the two witnesses were located far away from the scene of the incident and they saw the incident on the very occasion and they could not give any valid reason for their presence. The possibility cannot be ruled out either. The suspects did not know. Since he never went to the village where the incident happened, but since the accused was a resident of the village, he was falsely implicated, the FIR was not immediately filed, but a preliminary investigation. And after the debate was a case of legal proceedings / eyewitness testimony. It also appeared that he was not present at the relevant time as his close relative was beaten by the accused, who were not equipped with any deadly weapons, but witnesses did not intervene to save the victim from the clutches of the accused. Because of this, witnesses stated that their presence at the relevant time of the incident, not understandable, could not be relied on in various points to bring the conviction to a death sentence, the prosecutor's statement said. More wrong than that, who conducted the post-mortem examination the next day, was found guilty of various articles of public nature. Was the test. Unnecessary and in any way advocates from Ambela lawyer