Find a Lawyer

ABDUL LATIF versus STATE

The charge of defining section 302 (b) was not initially charged in the FIR; various sets of suspects were investigated during the investigation, trackers and sniffing dogs from the feet to track the murderers of the victim. Services were also obtained after which the accused was involved in the case. Nine months before the incident, he allegedly testified before two witnesses at a bus stop on the basis of evidence of extra-judicial confessions that had neither arrested the accused nor the complainant or the investigating officer. The witnesses were told about it later. His statements were filed under Section 161, CRPC, 13 days after the extra-judicial confession, and the accused was not suspected of being a murderer until that point, therefore, the evidence cannot be relied upon to file an extra-judicial confession. The developer claimed. At the time of the incident, the assailants were properly seen by him and other witnesses ccused who admitted that the complainant was a resident of the village, he was fully aware of the complaining party, his name in the FIR The motive was not included in the story, which alleged that the accused also suspected of having illicit contact with his wife, who was known to the witnesses, thus being the accused during the trial. The identity of the accused was meaningless, eye witnesses deliberately made dishonest reforms at the trial, with no evidence on the defendant's offer. Takanh material was not found in the suspect was acquitted. top civil advocates from Minchanabad lawyer