The prosecution failed to explain the 48-day delay in filing Section 365A and 457 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (e) FIR, when the evidence was abducted. Why the identity parade was held later. On the day of the abduction, the accused was identified in the electric bulb light and as the abduction statement was recorded under Section 164, the CRPC showed all that the abductor and the police were involved in the case. And there were doubts about the identity. None of the relevant witnesses, who according to the complainant had arrived at the place of abduction, were not inspected at the trial. The abductor did not disclose any details of his 107-day imprisonment, except for his positive. Statement that he had never seen the accused during his imprisonment. The kidnappers did not even reveal that they had been rescued and released. I suspect his arrest case is full of suspicion that I cannot be certain that the accused was acquitted under the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
