Section 302 (b) / 324/395/396/412/148/140 Counter-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 22 Identification of circumstances to benefit from a re-evaluation of evidence The details of the parade suspects were not mentioned in the FIR incident in the dark of night and it was not disclosed how the prosecution witnesses were able to identify the accused persons, um probably um. Was spotted in the car's headlights but could not be found. Prosecutor's witnesses have been watching more than once, and for a while, it was alleged that the complainant, along with the victim, was shot by one of the culprits, but was not identified. Who was the accused, nor the details of the absence of such details in the FIRFF was given to the FIR so that the litigation violated and the identification value of the test identification parade. Was severely damaged when the accused was not explained in the NFIR and the specific role was not designated, first Once certified in the absence of strong evidence in court should be identified suspects after time because it was not safe to rely on the memory ends and also the possibility that the accused may not be against it. The error was raised and the incident did not happen as the prosecution suggested and the prosecution failed to produce evidence in this regard, in which the Supreme Court found no scope for the benefit of the doubt. That the accused must go to. And the accused
