<?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>1954 (3) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169268</link>
    <description>A confession is admissible when the surrounding circumstances show it was made voluntarily; here, the Magistrate&#039;s warnings, supporting memorandum, and testimony satisfied that test, while allegations of threats, inducement, and police tutoring were rejected. The confession was also sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, including eye-witness material and recoveries of clothes, weapons, ammunition, and related circumstances; corroboration was not confined to facts discovered only after the confession, and material already in police possession could be used if it supported the confession. A co-accused could not be convicted on the appellant&#039;s confession alone, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to disturb the acquittal, which was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (3) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169268</link>
      <description>A confession is admissible when the surrounding circumstances show it was made voluntarily; here, the Magistrate&#039;s warnings, supporting memorandum, and testimony satisfied that test, while allegations of threats, inducement, and police tutoring were rejected. The confession was also sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, including eye-witness material and recoveries of clothes, weapons, ammunition, and related circumstances; corroboration was not confined to facts discovered only after the confession, and material already in police possession could be used if it supported the confession. A co-accused could not be convicted on the appellant&#039;s confession alone, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to disturb the acquittal, which was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>