In section 7, 16 and 17 (3) of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), the accused accused of defining the testimony of section 164 Harabah was found guilty only on his confessional statement, which was withdrawn on appeal, Not all legal requirements were met at the time of recording. The confessional statement did not provide any legal support to the accused, although the accused involved in the trial and execution of the crime was not given the opportunity to consider the outcome of his confessional statement; The court should have asked the defendant specific questions to deny the trial and the trial. Self; and the express evaluation should have been recorded, to ensure that the confessional statement was credible, it was indeed voluntarily submitted, motivated by no violence or coercion itself. The suspect was mentally prepared after knowing the consequences, the identity of the accused was not paraded. According to the law and the traditions of the law, the surveillance authority did not meet the witness who identified the accused during the identification parade, failed to appear before the trial court. Such an identity parade had no legal consequence. Recovery of the property was also a question mark. Neither the FIR nor the recovery memo was suspected of the value of the currency notes and the recovery of the seized money became suspicious and there was no legal status on which the accused was sentenced to death. And there are contradictions between the prosecution's story and the defendant's version. With regard to the incident, the written blanket was mutually damaged and the accused confessed and
