<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (10) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92308</link>
    <description>A criminal appeal should not be decided without fair legal assistance where the case is serious or the sentence is substantial, because the appellate court may need to secure counsel at State expense to avoid miscarriage of justice; in the described matter, the absence of assistance undermined the High Court&#039;s disposal. Statements made to the investigating officer cannot be treated as substantive evidence, except for limited use as permitted by law for contradiction; reliance on such statements without examining the officer was legally erroneous and tainted the conviction. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was remitted for fresh disposal, and the matter was restored for rehearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92308</link>
      <description>A criminal appeal should not be decided without fair legal assistance where the case is serious or the sentence is substantial, because the appellate court may need to secure counsel at State expense to avoid miscarriage of justice; in the described matter, the absence of assistance undermined the High Court&#039;s disposal. Statements made to the investigating officer cannot be treated as substantive evidence, except for limited use as permitted by law for contradiction; reliance on such statements without examining the officer was legally erroneous and tainted the conviction. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was remitted for fresh disposal, and the matter was restored for rehearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>