The benefit of the doubt as to the testimony of Section 9 (c) evidence was that the accused was not arrested on the spot, but was nominated by his co-accused. Such nomination may prove to be a basis for investigation against the accused, but the conviction There was no need for admissible evidence against him, no judicial or extra-judicial confession was made by the accused, nor from his point of view has the offense been proved. Neither was there any testimony against the defendants who provided direct evidence to prove their involvement in the case, and neither was the court's confession nor from the mouth of the co-accused, who did not offer. He was approved, not admissible, nothing was in the record that the complainant / police inspector, or any member of his team, had identified in the face of the person, who ran away from the car and the suspect under question. The case involved was surrounded by dense clouds of suspicion; there was no admissible evidence linking the accused to the crime. The accused was acquitted d Taking advantage of the 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.
