Articles 392 and 34 robbery, re-expression of evidence of common intention was exported to a motorist from a different city, the accused was convicted under sections 392 and 34, PPC, and the accused before the dismissal of the sessions court. The appeal filed by the convict was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs 20,000, the review petition filed before the High Court as the validity complainant, the sole witness of the robbery, appeared as a prosecution witness and the trial. Clearly stated before the court that the accused was not one of the people who took the motor car from him, and he was completely innocent in the matter. Was Other prosecution witnesses, including the acquittal witnesses, have been making statements before, according to the trial court's impression that the accused was innocent and did not commit any crime. That the stolen motor vehicle was not recovered from the physical possession of the accused, and that at the time of the alleged recovery, the accused was merely on the street from which the stolen motor vehicle was recovered, all the trial proceedings before the various witnesses of the prosecution. 'S statements went a long way in proving that the prosecutor had reasonably failed to fully and badly prove his case against the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the judge in the High Court chamber explicitly referred to various aspects of the case, but nonetheless, the judge in the chamber concluded in favor of the prosecution, which was conclusive, speculative and speculative. Was an opinion. That no reasonable court could have come to this conclusion in the circumstances of the present case, and this conclusion was possible only when the legal principles set forth in the criminal cases to define the evidence.
