Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KARIM versus THE STATE

Section 2/2 / Information34 The first information report states that the complainant went to file the report after meeting witnesses and obtaining full facts from them. The accused allegedly tried to seduce the accomplice by pointing to him, but admitted that the co-accused knew the accused and there was nothing there. The need for the accused to identify the accused was not the case in any of his statements under Section 161, the PC Investigating Officer did not give his statement so the witnesses in his examination The motive presented by the prosecuting attorney was not the same as that which would have occurred immediately to kill the accused and the co-accused. The location of the incident was located at a distance from the deceased's house and the accused could not have guessed that the deceased would be available at the same place and the collar account also did not independently prove serious punishment and punishment set aside. advocate from Rawat lawyer