Clauses 302 (b), 148 and 149 of the Clause benefit from the suspicion of the two eyewitnesses, although the mere close relation of the witnesses had no basis for declaring them as interesting witnesses, but in the present case between the accused and the eye. The previous enmity was there. The witnesses, witnesses, can be described as interested witnesses in the circumstances, saying that the witnesses were residents of a place not far from the scene of the incident and that they failed to provide a reason for being present at the scene of the incident. It may have been termed the witness of the occasion, who was later summoned and the witnesses who were close relatives of the victim also contradicted each other in connection with the murder case through the accused record. It has been proved that the accused were also unlucky to be involved in the murder case. The next day the bodies of the two victims were examined post mortem, yet the investigating officer arrived at the scene about half an hour later, which promptly prepared both inquiry reports and statements regarding the wounds. Witnesses were suspected to have been present at the scene, which was also unwarranted against the accused. The ocular account was of interest and non-interest in the circumstances and there was no independent document available on record to confirm that some of the accused had no recovered arms as there was no space for confrontation with the arms. Medical evidence was found to be not a proportional account because it did not identify the defendant and injured defendant in the incident.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
