<?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>2006 (8) TMI 523 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156909</link>
    <description>Reliable eyewitness, village and medical evidence was sufficient to identify the deceased and prove homicidal death despite decomposition of the body, and the law did not treat proof of corpus delicti as an inflexible prerequisite where direct and circumstantial evidence was trustworthy. Non-examination of some independent witnesses was not fatal because the prosecution evidence accepted by the Court was consistent and credible. In a concerted boat assault, common intention could be inferred from joint participation, and proof of separate overt acts by each accused was unnecessary. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 523 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156909</link>
      <description>Reliable eyewitness, village and medical evidence was sufficient to identify the deceased and prove homicidal death despite decomposition of the body, and the law did not treat proof of corpus delicti as an inflexible prerequisite where direct and circumstantial evidence was trustworthy. Non-examination of some independent witnesses was not fatal because the prosecution evidence accepted by the Court was consistent and credible. In a concerted boat assault, common intention could be inferred from joint participation, and proof of separate overt acts by each accused was unnecessary. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>