Section 7 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), the testimony of Haraba against the failure of section 417 (2A) evidence, made many reforms in his statement that the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that his The house is surrounded by neighbors' homes, and its relatives are attracted to the opportunity to create the alarm, but it does not appeal to the sensible mind that many people, if it happens, in the same compound. Live, successfully committed a crime of this nature and managed to escape, the evidence of the prosecutor's testimony was based on the hearing because he Did not witness the verse, the accused did not attribute any role. Animosity was also established between the parties, a crime report was filed 15 hours late, and no explanation was given through the complaint. In this connection, the accused remained in police custody for 14 days on physical remand. Stabbed / snatched articles from, and weapons of the alleged crime were not recovered from, the accused was not recovered from cancer, but was told that at the scene of the incident was lying and blood. He was stained and was not sent for forensic examination. The complainant and his grandson were the main witnesses of the case, but statements related to the incident. There were many improvements and contradictions. The complainant and the prosecution witnesses differed on the material points of entering the house by breaking or cutting the locks / chains in the house and leaving the house. It appears on the description of the stolen / stolen goods, and on the possession and possession of gold jewelry / case property in the name of the complainant record.
