Section 17 (4) Validating Harabah Evidence with Murder Benefit of Doubt The case of any ocular evidence was a fatal injury to the left side of the suspect's chest, causing such injury to the body's body, including himself. That didn't happen. The affected police did not take independent testimony from the locality without any reasonable explanation. Instead of witnessing the police recover from the area, the street was evacuated and only police officers acted as advisers in the absence of independent police witnesses. What, if there was no recovery, confirmed by them, it would also be suspicious that the money recovered by the witnesses and no mobile phone identification test was done by the witnesses to ascertain if the looted property was real. Is. Such lawlessness was fatal in litigation. And these circumstances cannot be particularly neglected when there is no evidence of complaint against the accused, the complainant was the brother of the victim and other close witnesses were his close relatives, the prosecution witness, in the FIR and at trial. The court did not designate the accused during the evidence before the court, the commission of the witnesses of the crime, which was declared admissible, denied the suggestion made by the prosecution regarding the accused's involvement in the commission of the crime, or the parties. There was no record of any compromise between the two and no record of any kind was presented. The testimony of such "distance" witnesses did not support the plaintiff's version of the prosecution through any oral or documentary evidence, neither the investigating officer in the case was examined, nor the DSP.
