The benefit of the doubt in Articles 392 and 34 robbery, the joint intention evidence, Victim, who was a star witness, did not accuse any accused of prosecuting the commission of the crime, and the evidence was completely silent in relation to the FIR. Had disclosed that the accused could be identified by sighting, but no identification parade was held, nor the victim identified was guilty of a crime prosecution story presented before the court, It appears that the prosecution relied on the individual disclosure. The police had already registered a case that was of no importance and could not be used as evidence against the accused during the statement under Section 342. Was denied and refused to record any additional judicial confession. A motorcycle, or a copy of it, was available on record. This was another dent in the case of non-participation of private persons from the local people. The prosecution's associate was acquitted while extending the benefit of the doubt. The accused was also entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the prosecution against the accused. Failure to prove the accused, the conviction and punishment of the accused was increasing the benefit of his doubt and the accused. Bad from the blame. \ r \ n
