Section 395 the documentary appreciated the evidence. Only five of the culprits and the accused are mentioned in the FIR trial under Section 95 95 under, PPC was not separately punished from the accused under Section 412, PPC. There was a double risk in the robbery by the same court in the same date, the complainant did not claim to be the accused in the identification parade, nor was the accused confessed at the time of his arrest in the present case. The identity parade complainant also did not identify the accused in court because a robber of his pickup prosecution withheld the best available evidence of the complainant's nephew, who was present at the time of the alleged robbery, and freely identified the suspect. And verify the prosecution's version, but despite the recovery of the pickup, was not immediately presented to the court as the looted property supports the prosecution's case. The benefit had to go to the accused and the accused was acquitted
