The testimony of the two prosecution witnesses who witnessed the incident were witnesses of the incident and their names were not mentioned in the FIR as the five persons, including the complainant, were also appreciated. They were present on the spot, but none of them tried to chase the accused. All witnesses, including the deceased's father, said they had seen the victim beaten up, but they None of the defendants dared to interfere with or interfere with the defendant's recovery because the complainant left the complaint. Had his son been unconsciously injured in a deserted place, and he went to the police station for self-report, the FIR did not name the accused, even though the complainant did not know about the characteristics of the accused. Do not provide any details. The operation took place at the police station, where the complainant and the prosecution witnesses claimed to have identified the accused, but no Rule was attributed to the accused, who performed the identification parade. The supervising DSP / SDPO, who was not presented as a witness to confirm the details of the identity parade, was not hiding or investigating the suspects. The complainant made several improvements to his statement on the suspect's disclosure; medical evidence was not helpful to the prosecution, as the oral account did not support the medical evidence, the owner of the robbery motorcycle, who was present at the time of the incident. Yes, there was no person present at the identity parade who identified the accused
