Saif said that Sharma, the original complainant, did not mention about the assault of his relative, Patel. He also added that Sharma was not there to provide evidence. Saif further said that this “substantiates” his case that Sharma is unwilling to proceed with the matter and therefore the police are trying to “substitute” him with Patel to proceed with the trial.
“The learned magistrate relied on the contradictory statements of prosecution witness whilst allowing the application of the prosecution…(he) should have considered there is a delay of almost four years on part of the respondent (police) to prefer the application for alteration of charge and as such there are no such findings on ground of delay,” states Saif’s appeal.
What do you have to say on this story? Do let us know in the section below.
