Section 302/452/394/397/449/109/34 The Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), the reception of Section 7 evidence, the conviction of the five accused and the trial court's remaining three convictions based on the same evidence The KFIR was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons with unknown delay of 10/11 hours. He was attributed the injury to specific injuries. According to the complainant, a convicted suspect was located in the same area where the incident occurred, the complainant had once again taken back his previous position, which caused serious suspicion in the prosecutor's story, Reliance cannot be placed on the complainant's additional statement, as the alleged perpetrators are clearly liars. Such an unforeseen delay in filing an FIR with the acquitted co-accused provided sufficient time to the complainant. Will conclude that this incident was not observed. The possibility of false interference of convicted defendants cannot be ruled out. Without independent evidence, the same evidence, the complainant's subsequent statement, cannot be considered as equivalent to an FIR or read as part of an FIR, but only as a statement under section 161. It is understood that the CCPC prosecution did not prove its case against the culprits without any doubt. The defense's request seemed reasonable, so the punishment
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
