<?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>2012 (12) TMI 877 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219862</link>
    <description>A deaf and dumb witness is a competent witness and may depose by signs, gestures or writing, but the evidence must be recorded in a reliable manner. The omission to administer oath does not by itself invalidate the testimony, yet in this case the statement was recorded through the witness&#039;s father, who was an interested person and participated in the investigation, and neither was sworn. The Court treated that mode of recording as unsafe and insufficient to sustain conviction. It also reiterated that interference with an acquittal is justified only where the view taken is perverse, and held that the High Court&#039;s benefit-of-doubt assessment was a possible view. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 877 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219862</link>
      <description>A deaf and dumb witness is a competent witness and may depose by signs, gestures or writing, but the evidence must be recorded in a reliable manner. The omission to administer oath does not by itself invalidate the testimony, yet in this case the statement was recorded through the witness&#039;s father, who was an interested person and participated in the investigation, and neither was sworn. The Court treated that mode of recording as unsafe and insufficient to sustain conviction. It also reiterated that interference with an acquittal is justified only where the view taken is perverse, and held that the High Court&#039;s benefit-of-doubt assessment was a possible view. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>