Section 302 (b) Qutel took advantage of the death-related dispute after suspecting the reaction to the evidence Medical Evidence and Practical Account Dispute Prosecution's witnesses said the incident happened around 11pm but according to the medical officer, The person who conducted the post-mortem examination, the time between death and injuries was about 10 minutes while the post-mortem and death time was about 24 hours and the accused was sentenced by the trial court and the High Court sentenced them. Had done worse. The time of death cannot be less than 23 hours, so the time of death was not in accordance with the time given by the prosecution's witnesses as there was a dispute between medical and oral evidence on such a case, according to ocular testimony, 8 hours from the post-mortem. He died before the examination but according to the Medical Officer, he died 23 hours before the post-mortem examination which was limited to 3/4 hours but was given a distance of 15 hours, therefore, in case when medical and oral. If there was a dispute between the evidence, medical evidence should have been preferred over the oral evidence, the prosecutor reasonably exceeding Failed to prove the case against the accused. It is suspected, therefore, that he was rightfully acquitted; the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision passed by the High Court.
