In the prosecution case, the prosecution's trial was rested only on the accused's extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the gun from the testimony of the prosecution, which he confessed to his crime during questioning with the police after his arrest. And such evidence could not be used against him. In view of Article 39 of the Law Evidence, 1984, even otherwise, the statements of the witnesses of the relevant prosecutors were silent about the confession of the accused and the record was not shown to the extent of the confession of the co-accused. The gun recovered on the occasion of the accused was used in the case against the accused, so there was no evidence and accordingly he was acquitted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
