were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
were made in the police
custody. No statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered ... such disclosure statements
are hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C. In this regard
that Salman has given a bald denial in his examination under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which also is a circumstance against ... Mohammad Saif is inadmissible in
evidence as it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 25 and
26 of the Indian
Additional
Government Advocate. It is also contended that pending of
criminal cases and pending criminal proceedings in other
jurisdictions are irrelevant ... erred in relying upon totally inadmissible evidence, which is hit by
Section 162 Cr.P.C. and Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence
