<?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>2007 (9) TMI 602 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169834</link>
    <description>Unexplained delay in lodging a criminal complaint can weaken the prosecution case, and a bare claim of prior police reporting is insufficient without supporting records; here, the delay remained inadequately explained because the alleged earlier complaint was not substantiated. Section 397 IPC applies only to the particular offender who personally uses a deadly weapon or otherwise satisfies the statutory requirement during robbery or dacoity, and it does not create vicarious liability for co-accused. On the evidence, the alleged weapons, lack of injury, and discrepancies in the complainant&#039;s solitary testimony meant the ingredients of Sections 397, 392 and 452 IPC were not proved, so the conviction could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 602 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169834</link>
      <description>Unexplained delay in lodging a criminal complaint can weaken the prosecution case, and a bare claim of prior police reporting is insufficient without supporting records; here, the delay remained inadequately explained because the alleged earlier complaint was not substantiated. Section 397 IPC applies only to the particular offender who personally uses a deadly weapon or otherwise satisfies the statutory requirement during robbery or dacoity, and it does not create vicarious liability for co-accused. On the evidence, the alleged weapons, lack of injury, and discrepancies in the complainant&#039;s solitary testimony meant the ingredients of Sections 397, 392 and 452 IPC were not proved, so the conviction could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>