The testimony of Section 2 (2 (b)) was the father of the complainant and both the complainant and the prosecution witness were related to each other and neither the complainant nor the prosecutor's witness were required to report the matter to the police station. However, upon receipt of a police officer, information arrived at the scene of the incident and the complainant's statement was recorded on the spot approximately and two and a half hours later, as no explanation was offered by the complainant. Why the police were not informed of the matter for about 2/2 hours? Witnesses were not with the deceased while he was critically injured. The victim, who was taken to the hospital, was referred to the Civil Hospital and the Medical Officer was seriously referred to the City Civil Hospital because of the serious condition. No statement was supported. The statement of the Medical Officer is not dependent. May be kept because it was a piece of fabricated fact that the incident was not witnessed, delay in filing the FIR was also supported by the deceased being not accompanied by the father who was critically injured at the time. Yes, the two witnesses also made an unbiased improvement in the trial, pointing to injuries. To the extent that both firefighters lost their lives due to fireworks injuries, but did not result in the attacker, the recovery of arms from the accused would be of no avail as there were no vacancies on the spot. And the weapon was not sent to the Franzic Science Laboratory. To find out if they were in working order, no public witnesses from the area were involved in the retrieval process,
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
