Sections 302 (b) / 34, 324/34, 384/34, 337f (ii), (iii), (vi), 353/34, 3241/149 and 337a (v) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (1997) XXVII), the prosecution's witnesses had modified their statements on the scrutiny of Section 7 and 21 (e) evidence, except for those related to the deceased and the insured, none of the accused being identified. Given that, medical evidence was silent about the nature of the weapon used. In this case, which could never have been the main source of the crime, but the alleged negligence proved to be the only result of the recovery of the firearms, with the parties acknowledging enmity with each other. Was. It would also be sufficient to accidentally mislead the same person from the other side if the evidence on record warrants doubt about the credibility of the witnesses about a set of accused. Their testimony is really about the other. The partner's set will have to be carefully considered by the accused and cannot be accepted without any form of reinforcement from other independent and credible sources. There was no evidence to corroborate the testimony, which was denied by both of them in connection with the second set of accomplices. The credentials of the courts and the testimony of eyewitnesses are controversial and full of doubts, the benefit of which went to the accused was acquitted.
