In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty

My brother has been accused of” defendant is guilty!! ” in a Criminal Case, and the papers are empty of evidence of incriminating evidence against him. What is the ruling in this case?

Guilt cannot be presumed before the prosecution proves a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and this principle applies until the judgment is made final as defined …

If the court suspects the defendant, it must wipe out his acquittal.
The judgment of his court had been made to the effect that it was sufficient to give effect to the acquittal to determine that there was doubt about the evidence and that the doubt was explained in favor of the accused as the accused ” defendant is guilty ” and that the acquittal was not required to be separately found in each conviction but sufficient to respond in a sentence to his doubts, all of which were conditional The court had tried the case, informed its circumstances, and the evidence on which the indictment was based, and found it to be visually and visually balanced with the evidence of the denial, which had overturned the defense of the accused or had involved in the suspicion of the elements of the indictment The point was made that he had visually and visually examined such evidence and that the fact that it was intended in that regard was unacceptable since it was the substantive argument in the Court of Cassation that the evidence should not be raised before the Court of Cassation