acceptance has not been proved, the Trial Court has
wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended that
the evidence ... Trial Court relying upon such evidence, has
wrongly come to the conclusion and has wrongly convicted
the accused. He further contended that there
which is unsustainable in law and accused No.2 has
been wrongly convicted.
8. He further contended that the court below
has not properly appreciated ... date of alleged
incident but the trial Court has wrongly convicted the
accused No.2/appellant. He further submitted that the
accused
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
chance
of he being witnessing the incident, the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended
that though ... place. Even then, the trial
Court has believed such evidence and wrongly
convicted the accused; PW.6 is an eye witness near
the house
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper
perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons. He further
submitted that there is no proper test ... Indian Evidence Act is proved.
The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.
He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced
