Find a Lawyer

BHAI KHAN AND 3 OTHERS versus THE STATE

Section 302 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 103, was charged in court by the complainant, mentioned in the first information report, that Moto had neither the support of the witnesses nor the prosecution. The source was proven to have been present on the spot by them in a village five miles away from the site of the incident, with no specific reason given by them about the time of their arrival. There were contradictions in the evidence and many people were crying in the face, but none of them were cited or examined as witnesses. The ocular evidence presented by the prosecution required independent support, which was also lacking in recovery. Intermittent and no dependency can be placed on the reco The accused were arrested five days after the recovery of blood-stained hatches and clothing at the time of their arrest when it appeared that it violated section 103, CR PC: One side was done and the articles were not sealed on time and at the rehabilitation site. The second prosecutor failed to explain the delay of 12 days, which led to a chemical examiner carrying blood-stained clothing and hatcheries, in this case being sentenced to prove dishonest. us immigration advocates from Kamra lawyer