Section 302 (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 161 Rule of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 22 Resolution of Evidence Section Identifying Suspicion Delay in recording statements under 161. The CRPC acquitted all the accused by the trial court, but the high court convicted one of the accused in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the appeal and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's witnesses were recorded after more than 21 days a month. The record shows that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 30 2000 2000, at the time of the filing of the oath, the prosecutor's witness provided a recording of his statement on 30 2000 2000, which would indicate the prosecution's testimony regarding his presence. Such suspicions arose in the statements, at the time of the alleged incident, the recording of their statements and identification parade The value of the parade ended when two prosecution witnesses confessed that the accused was in the hands of the magistrate. Was produced before and in the custody of the police in the case of both the prosecution witnesses Enough was enough, the identity test was taken after 76 days and at the time of identification. The investigation, the prosecution's witnesses did not state the role of each of the accused, who was identified at the time of the alleged incident, the memo did not disclose details, the names and address of the dummies also in their statement. Appealing that the fact of the identity test was removed, the Supreme Court had set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused by the High Court and acquitted him of the charge,
