Find a Lawyer

CHANESAR versus STATE

Validating Article 302 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Sections 353 and 537 Laws (10 of 1984), Article 133 One of the defendants who was absconding at the time the trial began, was not before the court. The accused can be arrested and the prosecution's evidence recorded, two other witnesses were examined in the chief, about three months after the arrest of the fugitive suspect after the recording of the inspection was recorded in the testimony of the other three prosecutors. The amended indictment was filed, but the evidence was not previously recorded as needed. Under Section 353, CRPC; this was also a violation of section 13133 of the 1984 testimony of the law; such serious irregularity was not curable under section 373737; the CRPC examined the witnesses to the other accused. Was not provided an appropriate opportunity, which was the legal right of every accused, in the circumstances. Submission of prosecution witnesses who were allowed to defend themselves in a reasonable manner also faced material weaknesses / contradictions, and even in the unlikely verdict the facts were not properly stated and appropriately The single-barrel gun was allegedly recovered from the suspect's home. Such recovery was made in the absence of the accused and neither gun nor empty cartridges were sealed by the maintenance adviser that the hatch had been secured before his arrival and In the presence of the cartridges were not sealed and the police obtained his signature on blank paper. It was further admitted that no blood stains were found on the hatchets at the time of recovery list of supreme court advocates from Bhimbar lawyer