in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
in an instance case where I m for the accused who is charged U/S 302 of IPC; the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the I/O, M/O and the complainant. Except the Copt- all PW deposed that they saw the victim committed suicide by hanging. The Copt. deposed that the accused killed the victim then hanged her to prove suicide, but he is a hearsay witness. The M/O who conducted the autopsy deposed that he found a complete round ligature mark in the neck of the victim and there is no gap near the knot. I n cross I ask him where her cervical cartilages was intact or not he replied that it was broken. Again I ask him whether a layer by layer examination of the tissue of her neck were examined or not, he said not again I asked him where her there is any sign of struggle or any nail mark near the ligature mark or nor he replied not. At last I ask his opinion – he deposed that the victim was died either as a result of a homicide or as a result of accidental hanging. As there is a complete ligature mark present if I argue that the death was as a result of accident whether it will create a reasonable doubt that my accused gets the benefit of doubt? Pl advice. The case is posted on 17th of June f
