Articles 5 395, 666, 2 342, 3 353, 7 42ation and 8 148, upon the testimony of the witnesses, found that the co-accused (a police constable) was standing with the robbers, yet the constable was directed to file an FIR. : Such requests were devastating to each other Prosecution witnesses did not disclose the suspects in the FIR of some of the identities: one of the accused was in the police lockup before the actual identification test, The identity test did not identify the footprints of the accused, which is why the suspect withdrew. Such judgments were obtained on the basis of dishonest inquiry from their judicial confessions and thus would not be denied as they were clearly violated by section 103, the CRPC said in the incident. About two years later, a bush was recovered from a bush. The impossible prosecution, held, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
