Section 302 (b) / 34 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (4), examining the evidence, one accused was arrested three years and eleven months after the incident, while the other The accused was arrested after four years and eight months along with his memory, the witness's memory will also expire over time and the suspect should be identified as soon as possible after the incident. The complainant did not provide any description of the accused in his first statement regarding his identification marks, structure, body, etc., and he did not even state that he could identify them, on the contrary, in court. In its statement, five and a half years after it took place, the complainant has named the defendant's specific role in firing at the victim. , Which was nothing but a dishonest improvement on his part, therefore, the complainant, therefore, cannot be relied upon for the identity of the accused was a witness to an opportunity not named in the FIR. , Who, after more than three days and more than nine months, accidentally met with the investigating officer and reported the incident and was the worst recruiter by the investigating officer. Appeal Court did not reliably rely on testimony Medical evidence only indicated that the deceased had lost his life due to injury in the firefight, but this did not result in the culprits. Turns out, no crime was recovered from the scene; fire recovery suspect's arm was unnecessary.
