Find a Lawyer

BEHRAM versus STATE

Section 392 The testimony of the witness failed to present to the complainant, who was the eyewitness, the witness was the witness. The FIR had complained that his car was taken away by some people for expression was Some people were? ? ?in common sense,? ? ?a few people? ?. However, as far as 13 accused, eleven of whom were declared absconders, nor their details were recorded in the FIR, the car in which the complainant was traveling was not presented. In connection with the incident, several police officers were present in the police van about the prosecution witness and the complainant who saw the accused running out of the taxi, but made no attempt to apprehend him, under section 161. Witness statement, CRPC recorded after 9 days delay for which no explanation was forthcoming Identity parade error Prosecution Goa It made clear in the statement that 10 to 12 people were in the identity parade, while D-Section P said there were 5/6 people who said that the prosecution witness also admitted that Section H at the time of the identification parade. And D-section P was present. But his statement had nothing to do with where he first saw the suspect in connection with the crime and how he could identify the accused, there was no recovery from the prosecution, in which case the accused was prosecuted. Failed to establish court directs jail authorities to release accused \ r \ n immigration advocate from Domeli lawyer