Since its adoption, the Fisheries Law of , (Ley de Pesca, , “Fisheries Law”) has been .. Decreto Nº /09 – Ley general de aguas. 77 | GRass wal, LEY NO 2 . 63 Bodie T T – Bridgeport M – – 09 CEDARVILLE . ост”виг | guг”L” | ид”эoz | 9ьс’иэ | л9″87 оy;”Ley | o67″8 “ct og7″L. 06? . 94 . оy gy С99 98 9 9 91 09 gaT уg9″g б66″1 02 ое | гдо”g 09
|Published (Last):||24 December 2005|
|PDF File Size:||1.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.85 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The postmortem report shows that the postmortem examination started at 6: He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely ely Sushil at the instance of Vimal who had alleged that he had some loan oey Sushil. He has also deposed that after having come to know of the crime, the first time he told his Jija was in the evening as he had become mentally upset. According to the Investigating Officer on He is aware the distance between Azadpur Mandi and Uttam Nagar where he was working and states that he was not working with his Jijaji.
According to him, neither Bateru Beg nor Mohd. Venugopal which is Ex. The provisions of Section of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
He has denied that he had identified the accused Sanjeev Bawa at the instance of the Investigating Officer and it took about hardly five minutes in taking his brother into the car oey chasing the car by him.
Ownership of Alto Car bearing No.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia
The witness has also deposed that he was having mobile no. He has proved having wrapped the same in a cloth and sealed with the seal of VKB after which he seized the parcel vide memo Ex. According to the said witness, it was not having number plate on the back side and he took the said car vide entry No. He has not St.
He has also denied that he has intentionally not identified the accused Sushil as he has been won over by him. The witness has also deposed that the accused also got recovered his clothes i.
He has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure regarding the incident or that that 1181-09 signed the disclosure statement on the instruction of the Investigating Officer despite the fact that no such disclosure was made by the accused.
He has proved that the cause of death was cranio cerebral damage as a result of fire arm injury which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot nor did he conduct any proceedings at the spot. According to the witness, the accused also disclosed that one slipper of deceased which fall outside the well was thrown by him in the Nala and the said chappal was already been recovered by the police team and at the instance of the accused pointing out memo of the said well was prepared which is Ex.
The witness has also deposed that SI Rakesh warned the occupant if the door was not opened, they would break open the same and in the meanwhile one lady from the said flat opened the lock as well as the door.
The Official Athletics Site of the Ragin’ Cajuns
The witness was unable to identify the accused Bhola. He has also denied the suggestion that they manipulated the arrest under Section 41 1 d Cr. However, no report of the Finger Prints has been placed on record to show that the chance prints lifted from the spot tallied with any of the accused persons. He has also deposed that he had gone to the police station after three to four days after their arrival from Cuttak and he got scared because of this case and that is why he came back in emergency by Tatkal as the position of his mother was better at that time.
Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and St. He has proved having 811-09 the kalandra vide Ex. Section does leu shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.
He has further deposed that he moved an application for getting their TIP conducted before Ld.
State vs . (1) Mukesh @ Bhola on 16 July,
Z ten of the P;oPrty. The accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence. It is writ large that the attempt of Mohd. He has further deposed that he did not prepare any site plan at the place from where he lifted the said car and 1811-09 before lifting the said car, no official from the FSL was called there.
Defence Counsels and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.