Section 2 (2 (b) / re 34) Definition of Evidence The benefit of the doubt was not only the testimony of all the witnesses, but also the opportunity, the animosity against the witness and the accused were the witnesses of the complainant and the prosecutor, the resident of Chuck, Besides, where the incident took place, the deceased's relatives, who were the witnesses of the complainant and the prosecution, could not provide proof of their presence at the relevant time. If the witness was present, the deceased would not be allowed to die. But he must have been given some first aid and needed to stop the bleeding person, who was the real brother of the deceased. He tried, after admitting that he had always worn a turban. He said that the deceased's injury was not bandaged by him or other prosecutor's witnesses, and that no bleeding brother could do so. The other victim's relatives, who claimed to be there, did not bother to bandage the injured victim and testify for first aid, who was the victim's son. There was enmity between the complaining party and 4/5 criminal cases are pending in the case. N was recorded, which was proved completely that he was not there. The witnesses of the injured and the prosecution all made different statements about the seats in the bus, leading to the logical conclusion that none of them were present at the time of the incident, the medical evidence showed only the prosecution. Version of was supported The victim suffered a left-handed bruise on the left side Delhi
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
