Section 2 (2 (b) / Q 34) in connection with the construction of the bridge over a dead water channel, the accused's argument was that their case was made on the testimony of two witnesses of the prosecution, one of them the deceased. Was the father of the accused who had hostile relations with the accused; that contradicts the statement of the deceased's father (the prosecutor's witness) through medical evidence. The investigating officers of the case believed that the accused persons and other accomplices were acquitted. The accused are innocent and have never had a firearm - the victim was killed during cross-fire, not by the accused, but by the shooting of his colleagues. A. If the victim's father was present at the time of the incident, instead of going to the hospital, he should have gone to the police station first to report that the prosecution's second witness was an opportunity witness because according to his own admission he did not use the route in question. But on the day of the incident he used the way to go to this person's home \ N \; the person \ N should have been investigated in this case so that he could use the evidence of the prosecution's other witness on the route he had taken. This version is supported. He said the other prosecutor assisted the complainant and was taken to tutor to make his statement as his seven relatives were charged in the cross case. That if any other witness was in the hospital at the time of the FIR recording, he should have given his statement there and then, and there was a cross-version of the incident, therefore, his benefit was also available to him. The legitimate rights of the accused were consistent with the statements of the father (the witness of the deceased) and the testimony of the other prosecutors and the reporting
