<?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>1956 (9) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169267</link>
    <description>A retracted confession may support conviction if the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and true, and if independent evidence gives sufficient assurance of its essential truth and the accused&#039;s participation in the offence. Here, the defence of coercion and inducement was rejected for lack of proof, and the confession was treated as having been recorded after caution and reflection. The blood-stained articles, recovery of gold earrings, and medical evidence furnished adequate corroboration. The appellate court was also held not to have exceeded the proper limits of review in reversing the acquittal, because it gave substantial and compelling reasons for differing from the trial court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:30:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (9) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169267</link>
      <description>A retracted confession may support conviction if the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and true, and if independent evidence gives sufficient assurance of its essential truth and the accused&#039;s participation in the offence. Here, the defence of coercion and inducement was rejected for lack of proof, and the confession was treated as having been recorded after caution and reflection. The blood-stained articles, recovery of gold earrings, and medical evidence furnished adequate corroboration. The appellate court was also held not to have exceeded the proper limits of review in reversing the acquittal, because it gave substantial and compelling reasons for differing from the trial court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>