Name- Naman Jayprakash Badsiwal

Roll No- 1916

Exams- End-Terms
Semester- UG IV Semester
Subject- Crime and Punishment II

Page 1 of 14
2nd Ans.
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. gives power to the court to examine the accused. The purpose of
empowering the court to examine the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C is to meet the
requirement of the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem (that no one should be
condemned unheard). This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation
as regards the incriminating circumstances associated against him and the court must take
note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is necessary to decide
whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. (Raj Kumar Singh v. State of
Rajasthan).
The scope and object of examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is: -
 To establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put every
important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity
to answer and explain them. (Sanatan Naskar & Another v. State of West Bengal);
 To test the veracity of the prosecution case. The examination of the accused is not a
mere formality, the questions put to the accused and answers given by him, have great
use. The scope of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and is not a mere formality. The
object of recording the statement of the accused under section 313, Cr.P.C. is to put
all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to
explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the
prosecution. (Sanatan Naskar & Another v. State of West Bengal)
The section itself declares the object in explicit language that it is “for the purpose of
enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him.” The object of section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, is to cast a duty upon
the courts to question the accused properly and fairly, so that it is brought home to the
accused in clear words the exact case that the accused have to meet and thereby an
opportunity is given to the accused to explain any such point. The examination of the accused
is not intended to be an idle formality it has to be carried out in the interest of justice and fair
play to the accused.
It was held by honourable supreme court in decision reported in Raj Kumar Singh vs State of
Rajasthan in para No 25:
“In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e., Audi alterum partem. This
means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the

Page 2 of 14
incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such
explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or
not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the
prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his
explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The
circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.”
STILL REMAINING
3rd Ans.
The plaintiff filed an appeal following the verdict and decree of the Bombay High Court's
Aurangabad Bench on August 24, 2010. According to the criminal appeal No.359 filed in
2008 by the appellant and two others, those two have been dismissed thus far. The appellant
is worried about the two remaining when he was accused with murder, which is punishable
under I.P.C. section 302, and for which he was sentenced to life in jail and fined Rs.2,000/-.
However, the appellant was sentenced to three more months in jail for failing to pay the fine.
According to the matrix, which is based on the facts on which the appellant was tried and
convicted by the trial court, as well as the High Court's judgement.
Facts of the Case
The facts of the case are like the incident occur due to the ultimate death of the deceased
named Nilkanth Pawar. The consequent prosecution of the appellant along with two others
was going into their field at 10.00 p.m. On 3rd February 2006, the deceased and his wife
were taking care of their Jaggery crop that was growing in their field. The story of
prosecution is that Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad along with two other his friends Madhav Shivaji
Gaikwad and Shivaji Bhivaji Gaikwad respectively these were the accused along with
Ankush, they were passing the field of the deceased at that time the dog of the deceased
person started barking towards the appellant and his friend. They all three got angry due to
the dog’s barking and they used the lathi to hit the dog of the deceased person and this led to
the ultimate quarrel and fight in words by using abusable words by both parties. The deceased
person raised an objection to the appellant for the beating of his dog. After that the appellant
started abusing the farmer and said to him keep quiet otherwise, I used to beat you in the
same way as your dog is beaten. This exchange of abusive language or words led to a fight
and then Ankush Gaikwad started to hit the farmer with the iron road or pipe on his head and
as a result, the farmer died during that moment all the three accused ran away from that spot.

Page 3 of 14
The witnesses of the incident were the wife of the deceased person named Mangalbai and the
owner of the neighbourhood field that is Ramesh Ganpati Pawar who was present in his field
at the time of the incident. After that, the injured person was carried to the nearby hospital by
bike. After two days his health situation became more precarious after that the wife of the
deceased person filed a complaint against the accused at the Omega Police Station, on 5th
February 2006 on the basis of sections 323, 326, 504 that was read with Section 34 of the
I.P.C. After that, the police started the investigation and on 7th February 2006 the person
died and after that one more section was added, section 302 that was read with section 34 of
IPC. After the Post-mortem report of the deceased person came that said that there was a
contusion behind his right ear, on the right arm and there was an abrasion also on the joint of
his right ankle. Along with it the report also said that there were some internal injuries on his
head and fractures on the skull, blood clots in his brain tissue that lead to the death of the
person. During the investigation, the police found the weapon that was used to hit the person
and after that, the police filed a charge sheet before the judicial magistrate, after going
through the facts and circumstances the judicial magistrate found them guilty under Section
302 that was read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. And the court held that the appellant and his
co-accused are guilty of the offense of murder under section 302 of IPC and therefore they
were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees 2,000/- each one along with a
default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. But The incident occurred
between them because a sudden fight between them took place without any prior intention
that the appellant will hit the deceased person but the appellant hit the farmer in the heat of
passion without taking an unfair advantage. And as a result, the appellant filed a petition
before the high court and the high court granted the petition.
Issue
 Whether the appellant (who was the accused) is liable for murder or the culpable
homicide not amounting to murder?
 Whether the courts have the authority to consider the question of granting
compensation to the victim and also to record the reasons for granting and refusing
compensation?
 Whether the compensation should be awarded as per section 357 of Cr.P.C.?
Judgment
After going through the various facts and circumstances the apex court found that the nature
of the injury and the way in which the incident happen indicate that there was no malafide

Page 4 of 14
intention of the accused to kill the person because the incident happens due to the barking of
a dog. The dog barked at the accused and his two friends and then they used a stick to hit the
dog and this led to objection by the deceased person and then the wording used by the
accused that they will also hit you like your dog. This abusable transfer of words or language
leads to the fight between them and in the heart of compassion the accused hits on the head of
the deceased person. So, this indicates that there was no ill will or motive to kill the person.
After seeing the issue of granting compensation to the victim, it looked as per section 357 of
Cr.P.C. grant power to provide compensation to the victim in the form of a fine. The concept
of granting compensation arose in the court of England because England was the first country
that introduced the concept of making payment of compensation to the victims by the
offender. After that, the USA also applied the concept of compensation as per The Victim
and Witness Protection Act of 1982 that granted the power to the federal court to grant
compensation on solid ground.
Hence, we can say that it is not compulsory for the courts to award restitution on each case
but they can grant and deny compensation on the solid reason but this means not that the
court has no response the denying the compensation, the court has also need to give a solid
reason for denying the compensation. To decide the amount of compensation, the court needs
to look into the history of the person and his financial situation and then the loss occurs to the
victim and after that to make a proper balance the court can grant compensation. So, as per
section 357 of cr.P.C. The court has the power to grant or deny the compensation on the basis
of the case to case but it is mandatory for the court to apply their mind in granting the
compensation after seeing the capacity of the family of the accused and also keeping in mind
the loss occurring to the victim. Thus, the court failed to consider section 357 in the proper
manner.
Held
So, the court granted the appeal up to the extent of convicting the appellant with rigorous
imprisonment according to section 304 (2) of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC. And the
court also held that the court needed to consider the awarding or rejecting the compensation
and should have needed to have a proper reason for that.
Critical Analysis of Judgment
After going through the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that as per section 357 of
Cr.P.C. The court has the power to grant or reject compensation but it is the duty of the court
to apply its mind while granting or rejecting the compensation and what is the reason behind

Page 5 of 14
that and may vary from case to case. It is also the duty of the court to look into the
background and as well as the financial situation of the accused before granting the
compensation. But in the above-mentioned case, the Courts ignore the provision of section
357 of Cr.P.C. before granting the compensation.
The second thing that is about the sentence that is awarded to the accused was as per section
302 of I.P.C. while the accused was found responsible under section 304 of I.P.C. that talks
about the culpable homicide not amounting to the murder. Because after the investigation it
was found that the incident happened due to the sudden fight between the accused and the
deceased person. So, this indicates that there were no prior intentions, greed, and motives like
revenge in the mind of the accused, hence the entire incident was the result of the sudden
fight. Hence it falls under section 304(2) of IPC that said that if any person was killed due to
the sudden heat or fight between them then it will fall under section 304(2) of IPC that talk
about the culpable homicide not amounting to murder because there were no any prior
intention or motive to kill the person. Hence the appellant was not liable for section 302 but it
is liable under section 304 part 1 and 2 of I.P.C. And we can find whether there was a
motive or not of the accused behind killing the death of a person by knowing the following
ways and this will lead us to understand whether the accused is liable under section 302 or
304 of I.P.C.
The intention of the accused can be seen by considering various facts and these facts are
given as below:-
 The weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot and the nature
of the weapon used;
 The amount of force employed in causing injury that means whether the blow is
aimed at a vital part of the body;
 Whether the act was in the course of a sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free-for-fight
or whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there were any pre-planned
ways;
 Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such
provocation, like in heat of passion;
 Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a
cruel and unusual manner; and,
 Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of
circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special

Page 6 of 14
 circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the
question of intention.
And the court also said that the deciding amount of compensation depends on the case. But it
is the responsibility of the judge of that court to take a proper look before awarding or
rejecting the compensation. Second thing is that there was a mistake of the trial court that the
accused was sentenced under section 302 while he was liable under section 304 part 1 and 2
because the death of a person was caused due to the sudden fight between them there was no
prior intention to kill the deceased person.
Conclusion
After going through the case, I would like to conclude that, it is true that the court has the
power to grant the compensation as per section 357 of Cr.P.C. but before granting or
rejecting the compensation it is the duty of the court to think about granting or rejecting the
compensation if it rejects or award then why. Hence in the above-mentioned case, the apex
court held that there was a mistake in making consideration on granting compensation by the
court and second thing is that the accused was punished under section 304(2) which is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder in IPC instead of section 302. And The fine that
was imposed on the appellant along with the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment
remains unaltered.

4th Ans.
Issuing of Process
The Magistrate might order that the accused be included or provided in courtroom docket by
issuing a technique for making him accountable to the courtroom docket in order for him to
appear in courtroom docket. As stated in Section 204 of the CrPC, when a complainant files
a police report or brings a grievance before a Justice of the Peace, the Justice of the Peace
must consider the charges raised and, if necessary, issue a sentence against the accused. He
must issue summons or a warrant since the case comes before him. He can also postpone the
problem of procedure, according to Section 202 of the code, which details the circumstances
in which the Justice of the Peace can do so. Section 204 allows the Justice of the Peace to
issue summons or warrants (for the accused's attendance) when the prosecution's witnesses
have been filed. The Magistrate is not obligated to keep detailed records of the reasons for
filing complaints against the accused. At this stage of the process, the Magistrate is mostly
concerned with the claims mentioned within the grievance or the proof offered in support of

Page 7 of 14
the same, and he'll most effective wish to be prima facie satisfied whether or not there are
sufficient motivations to keep against the accused.
Necessary to pay attention accused or now no longer earlier than issuing method
There is nothing in Section 202 or 204 that indicates the accused had any role in the issuing
procedure. The Supreme Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra addressed the
question of whether or not the accused had any locus standi before the method was issued
(cited below):
“It appears to us clean from the complete scheme of Ch. XVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that an accused character does now no longer come into the image in any respect
until method is issued. This does now no longer suggest that he's precluded from being gift
while an enquiry is held with the aid of using a Magistrate. He may also stay gift both in
character or thru a recommend or agent so as to be knowledgeable of what goes on however
because the very query for attention being whether or not he has to be known as upon to
stand an accusation, he has no proper to participate withinside the complaints nor has the
Magistrate any jurisdiction to allow him to do so. It could comply with from this, therefore,
that it'd now no longer be open to the Magistrate to place any query to witnesses at the
example of the character named as accused however towards whom method has now no
longer been issued; nor can he have a look at any witnesses at the example of this sort of
character.”
In summary, the court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a fair hearing during
the issuing procedure since the primary issue at the time of issuance was whether the
defendant would face an indictment that was not based on his statement. The court is not
allowed to hear the defendants in the proceedings under Article 202 of the Code as to whether
the proceedings should be launched, and the defendants have the right to hear. In the case of
Meenakshi Jain, the court rules that future defendants (rather than the defendants at the
moment) are not entitled to a hearing at the time of the subpoena and are not permitted to
dispute the court order.
Analysis
The Supreme Court has ruled that the judge does not have the authority to hear the
defendant's side of the story before the trial begins. This is contrary to the intent of CrPC
sections 202 and 204. Before the subpoena or issue, the judge must act on the principal
evidence gathered against the defendant, and the defendant may not be given the opportunity
to be heard. Despite the fact that the court differentiated the investigation from the re-

Page 8 of 14
investigation and the above settled legal position that distinguished the facts, there was a
difficulty with the procedure in the cases of Prabha Mathur vs. Pramod Agarwal and
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. Gujarat.
From the investigation's case Consistent with the court's conclusions regarding the
whereabouts of the defendant prior to the proceedings. Justice of the peace does not have the
authority to discuss in detail the strengths or weaknesses of the case. In other words, the
scope of the investigation under Section 202 or 204 is limited to assessing whether the
complaint is true or false in order to determine the problem of the procedure. The
investigation is carried out to determine if the complaint is true or false. Is there sufficient
evidence to justify the proceedings and the proceedings against the parties involved? As in
the above case, the § is guilty or innocent because the accused can only be finally summoned
to answer the accusations made against him within the framework of trial and prosecution.
Those who are complaining at this stage do not need a regular hearing to establish.
Therefore, the judge cannot summon the accused before the start of the trial, and the
defendant cannot participate in the trial until it is summoned or summoned.

5th Ans.
(a)
Article 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a person arrested or imprisoned for a
criminal offence to request for bail. Bail keeps the accused from being imprisoned pending
trial unless and until they are proven guilty or innocent, and it supports the criminal justice
principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Abandonment of bail
CrPC P.437 (5) and p. 439 (2) contains provisions for canceling deposits. The purpose of
releasing bail is to prevent a person accused of a crime on bail from tampering with evidence
(especially vicious crimes) and other criminal offenses, and to delay the release of bail to
ensure a fair trial. , To ensure the justice of society. It will completely defeat the purpose. The
Common Clause Act gives the court the discretion to revoke bail. This is because it is a
preliminary order that may be reviewed later, based on new facts or circumstances, or if new
materials or records are submitted or recorded. Orders to release previously granted bail must
be based on compelling and compelling evidence. Attempts to interfere with or attempt to
interfere with the legitimate control of justice, attempts to avoid or avoid the legitimate

Page 9 of 14
control of justice, or any form of abuse of acceptance given to the accused are all reasons for
bail. Judges' satisfaction with the defendant's possible escape based on the evidence presented
in court is another reason for the release of bail. However, bail should not be automatically
revoked without first determining whether the intervening case has prevented a fair trial,
leaving the accused free while the case is being heard. You can be Abdul Basitv. Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary summarized the reasons for bail as
(i) abuse of liberty by persons accused of criminal activity.
(ii) Interference with the investigation process.
(iii) Attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses.
(iv) Intimidate witnesses or engage in similar activities that interfere with investigations.
(v) Possibility to escape to another country.
(vi) Attempts to run short of themselves by sneaking underground or making them
unavailable to law enforcement agencies.
(vii) Trying to go out of the reach of sponsors.
In the 268th report of the Indian Legal Commission, the Commission listed the reasons for
breaking bail, which led to a long-standing court decision. The reasons for these are as
follows:
• Defendant commits the same crime on bail that was charged or convicted. • Defendants
who interfere with the investigation of the case. • The accused manipulates the evidence and
threatens witnesses.
• The accused will either flee or hide abroad. • The accused committed violence against
police and prosecution witnesses for revenge. • New evidence proves that the defendant is
guilty of a criminal offense punished by death or life imprisonment.
• When bail is imminent for the defendant.
• If the price changes or the situation changes.
• Defendant does not appear in court at the designated time despite bail.
• When bail is obtained by concealing important facts.
• The High Court found that the court granting bail acted on irrelevant facts or sources, had
no thought effort, or was clearly inappropriate.
completed
The release of bail is only done in exceptional circumstances, taking into account the public
interest in preventing criminals from committing more serious crimes, as well as the

Page 10 of 14
individual's right to freedom and freedom in front of the state. Should be The purpose of bail
is to ensure the existence of people and to protect their freedom from national detention.
There are several specific reasons for canceling a deposit, but there are no specific steps to
cancel a deposit once it has been granted.

(B)
judicial discretion
Under CrPC, the legislature has given the Sessions Court and the High Court judicial
discretion regarding bail applications. The discretion of the judiciary does not mean that the
judge has the sole discretion to determine the matter of discretion given to him. L. Benjamin
Cardzo's ideas on judicial discretion may help to better understand it:
"The judge is still not completely free, even if he is free. He should not innovate at will. He
is not a chivalric romance, but is free to roam in pursuit of his own ideals of beauty and
goodness. He should be inspired by the sacred principles. He must not succumb to sporadic
emotions, vague, unregulated mercy. He should exercise discretion that is informed by
tradition, methodological by analogy, disciplined by the system, and subordinate to the
primary need for order in social life. As far as our knowledge and beliefs are concerned, the
scope of the remaining discretion remains wide enough.
According to Sir Camden, the law of despots states that the discretion of the judge is always
unknown and varies from person to person. It's casual and depends on your constitution,
temperament and passion. It often feels great. At worst, human nature tends to occur in all
sins, stupidity, and passion. As part of the deposit.
The judicial discretion relates to a judicial assessment of the particular facts and
circumstances of each case, in accordance with established rules for permitting or denying
release. Examples – When seeking bail after being arrested for financial fraud, courts often
find the nature and severity of the indictment, the criminal's past actions, the risk of the
criminal escaping justice or interfering with witnesses, and much more. Factors need to be
evaluated. soon. These factors need to be considered when deciding to apply for a bond. If
the judge refuses or grants bail without justifying his decision because he has exercised
judicial discretion, the order must properly justify the written bail or refusal order. It will be
invalid by law. H. The discretion of the judiciary is not merely the opinion or decision of the
judge, but the proper application of judicial reasoning in such matters, based on established
principles.

Page 11 of 14
6th Ans.
Procedures for Searching In order to analyse the legal repercussions of breaking your search
rules, you must first describe them succinctly. “Search Rule” CrPC Section 100 (1)
authorises an officer or anyone carrying out a warrant to enter a closed location if the person
or resident consents. Furthermore, appropriate provisioning facilities must be provided.
Perform a search. The new section replaces sections 102 and 103 of the old legislation,
which allowed for the same type of search for restricted locations and required the presence
of at least two independent witnesses.
The main elements of Section 100 are:
• The person responsible for the enclosed space or the resident must be able to search the
location when creating the search warrant.
• A search according to Section 100 Paragraph 1 must be accompanied by two independent
and trusted witnesses (Section 100 Paragraph 4) and must be witnessed.
• If an "independent witness" refuses to attend the search without justifiable reason or does
not appear in the search after receiving a written order, he or she will be punished under
Article 187 of the Indian Criminal Code. Section purpose 100 (4) For searches of limited
space, Section 100 (4) of CrPC requires the presence of two independent and reputable
witnesses. This section clarifies the essential requirements of this chapter. This means that
even for a personal search (Section 100 (3)), you need two independent witnesses. Before
delving into this topic, it is important to understand why Section 100 (4) exists in the first
place. Indifferent and respected people must assist in the investigation, as police are also
stakeholders in the case, as police want the prosecution to win and may collude to forge
evidence. The reason is to maintain fairness. Section 100 (4) is necessary to rule out the
possibility of falsification or falsification of evidence. The impact of a violation of paragraph
100 (4) on a face-to-face search in less than a second. 100 (3) Section 100 (3) allows a
competent officer to search for a person if there is reasonable suspicion that he is hiding what
is being sought. However, in the case of women, only women who adhere to dignity can
search. The impact of the lack of independent witnesses in the personal search was addressed
by the Punjab and Haryana High Courts of Punjab vs. Ramprakash. The court found it, apart
from S's provisions. 100 CrPC has no other provisions requiring the personal presence of an
independent witness at the time of the search. Therefore, in the absence of witnesses, if police
officers search for a location without justifying their absence, the court must be careful in

Page 12 of 14
assessing the prosecution's evidence, but this alone of the prosecution's It does not damage
the credibility of the case.
The provisions of Article 103 (formerly Article 100) of the Supreme Court endorsed by
Thundersin v. U.P. State do not apply to personal searches and do not require the presence of
independent witnesses. The court further ruled that failure to follow the procedures set out in
Article 103 would not affect the effectiveness of the procedures. Rather, it affects the value of
the evidence and the court's obligation to investigate the evidence more thoroughly. From the
judicial interpretation of Article 100 (3), failure to follow the investigation procedure does
not automatically disqualify the evidence obtained, but the court will evaluate the evidence
obtained more carefully and sufficient. Note. seconds 165 allows police to enter into place
without search warrant Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code was introduced to allow
police to conduct searches in an emergency when obtaining a search warrant from a
Magistrate is not feasible. The provision does not limit the search to items that have been
stolen or are suspected of having been stolen, but rather empowers the police officer to search
for anything necessary to investigate any crime. While the provision authorises police to
undertake a search of the residence in order to investigate any crime, it also requires officers
to record reasons as a first step before entering the property. Provisions dealing with
noncompliance of search procedures In general, only a legitimate search warrant allows the
police or investigative agency to search a place, although CrPC allows for instances where an
unauthorised individual grants a search warrant who was not empowered to do so. These are
some of the provisions: A search warrant issued under Section 460 of the Code is not
voidable even if it is issued by a Magistrate who lacks the necessary authority. Only a local
justice, a deputy security judge, or a first-class justice of the peace can issue an investigation
warrant for a place suspected of containing stolen or counterfeit documents. However, if the
warrant was issued incorrectly but in good faith by someone other than the Justice of the
Peace, the warrant will be invalid only because the Justice of the Peace is not authorized to
issue such a warrant. It is not. Search warrants issued by unauthorized justice of the peace are
expressly prohibited by Article 461. In this section, only the Justice of the Peace of the
County or the Justice of the Supreme Court may issue an investigation warrant for
documents, packages, or other items held by the postal or telegraph authorities under Section
93 (3). Under Article 461, the issuance of a warrant by a judge without legal authority
invalidates the warrant and makes subsequent searches for that location illegal.

Page 13 of 14
The question of how an illegal search affects the validity of a trial or the permissibility of
evidence is not addressed by CrPC, but is partially addressed by the court in case law
decisions. Judge Mudholkar of Radha Krishan vs. U.P. Remarks: "If you violate the
provisions of §§103 (formerly GGB §100) and 165 StPO, those searching for the facility may
resist the search. Due to illegality, courts may tend to carefully examine evidence of seizures.
But beyond these two results, there is no better result. " The same was said by the Supreme
Court of Pooran Malv. Observed direction. The Department of Inspection has found that
evidence collected as a result of illegal searches or seizures is not subject to repression unless
expressly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution or other legislation. The tendency of
this law is that the evidence itself collected illegally or improperly is not unacceptable.
However, if the breach of the investigative authorities is serious and causes serious harm to
the accused, this evidence may be omitted. Conclusion Investigative Provisions require
various protective measures to ensure a fair investigation of the case, but if police do not
comply with these requirements, they can cause serious harm to the suspect. The court has
not decided to suspend the criminal procedure or ignore the evidence collected during the
improper investigation. The court has given itself the discretion to exclude illegally obtained
evidence that could disapprove the judiciary with respect to the facts and circumstances of the
case, but such illegally obtained evidence We do not provide integration guidelines to refer to
when evaluating. Can be retained. Since most prosecutions begin and end in lower courts,
finding a place and person is important to the investigation and ultimately the trial, so the
search procedure needs to be streamlined and a robust mechanism must be provided. If an
investigation is jeopardized by an investigative agency's illegal search tactics, the process
should not continue with the previous illegal search and seizure.

Page 14 of 14