Section 17 (4) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 412 Harabah that resulted in the assassination, dishonestly acquiring property in the commission of a robber, the benefit of suspecting the value of the evidence, the deposition of both witnesses, The witnesses who claimed to be eyewitnesses did not appear to be eyewitnesses of the incident and repeated what they had heard on the spot from others present, evidence of testimony that was able to be heard, did not affect confidence. What, especially when there is a big contradiction in the material points in his statement. The testimony of the star's testimony revealed the confusing details of all the events that only relate to his testimony, which was contradicted by one of the prosecution witnesses of the police officers, nor did anyone bleed, nor was the location of an empty incident. Was recovered from. This aspect of the case also raised doubts about the actual location of the incident, although the report by the Rerence Franzic Science Laboratory on the recovered pistol was positive, but with no crime being vacated and with it On the contrary, there was no positive evidence regarding its precision, to prove that the pistol recovered from the suspect was smelling freshly released odor. There were contradictions about the number of live bullets allegedly found in the suspect and the forensic science laboratory at the time of the recovery. And this contradiction showed a negative dispute over the integrity of the investigating officer, the prosecutor was obliged to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt, but an examination of the evidence on the record showed that the prosecutor Beyond any reasonable doubt
