Section 392 law in evidence (10 of 1984), the evidence of Article 40 robbery was delayed due to the police delaying the discovery notice in the registration of the Cageco FIR, which started the investigation before the FIR was registered. The delay in the registration of the RK was explained, and the illegal activities of the police officers cannot be tolerated. Since they could not initiate an investigation before registering this case as considered under section 154, the CCP Complainant mentioned the names of the accused and his co-accused in the FIR It was reported that the accused was empty-handed, while the co-accused was armed with Kalashnikov. At the time of the hearing as a prosecution witness, the complainant dismissed that the suspect had snatched his motorcycle at gunpoint, on behalf of the complainant. There was no plausible explanation for the accompanying alternatives to the accused, not the physical possession of the accused accused of the motorcycle. It was In the custody of the police and in the absence of a magistrate, the accused made the crime. And without strong conviction, there was no legal significance The extra-judicial confession was a very weak type of evidence, and no witnesses were prosecuted in any of the statements of the prosecution's witnesses regarding the whereabouts of the motorcycle. Can be The recovery of the motorcycle was not only suspicious, but also a violation of Section 103 on the accused's disclosure, only the PC's PC Recovery, also for recording, from the house of the accused participant on the alleged disclosure of the accused. There was not enough punishment, especially when it came to the account of the incident
