Article 302 (b) Katil reacts to evidence Applying the death penalty tendency Applicable to unclear delay in FIR registration, failure to prove motions and conviction sentenced by trial court, High Court upheld The accused demanded a reduction in the sentence. In the plea that he was detained for over a year, the valid events in 1996 took place on 20 11 1996 but the FIR was filed with a delay of four days without any delay in the case. Failed to present witnesses. Relied entirely on some pieces of circumstantial evidence. All the pieces of evidence did not indicate the culprit's guilt and the motive set by the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt, but some of the prosecution's witnesses stated the alleged motive, but in many cases they were before the trial court. Acknowledged. Words that he did not know about the alleged motives or details and no personal information about him, knew that there was some dispute between the accused and the deceased on the issue of arrears. Such evidence was accepted by a court of law. It cannot be concluded that the purpose of the prosecution has been proved by the satisfaction of the court. If the accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment for more than 18 years in connection with this case, he would have fulfilled the sentence after seeking the required apology but till now the court has sentenced the accused. But the death sentence has changed. Appeal was allowed according to the life sentence
