Investigating the evidence in Section 2 (b (b)), the witness did not name the accused in the FIR nor did the witnesses explain the defendant's role in the incident because of the inherent defect given to its defining characteristics. According to the FIR, the witnesses did not know the accused prior to the incident and the identification parade was not in accordance with the law, so the identity of the accused was not important in the court through the witnesses. Already had different opportunities to see the accused for the Identity Parade? Six months after the incident and nine days after the arrest of the accused. Many suspicions had been raised about his identity; the confessional statement made by the accused allegedly to the Investigation Officer was unacceptable in the absence of any credible evidence. In this regard, when the case against the accused can be prevented, in his statement under section 2342, the CCPC told the CCP to recover the rifle from the accused in violation of section 103. Yes, the witnesses had already improved their statements. The trial court's ocular testimony was contradictory and did not encourage conviction.
