<?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>2003 (12) TMI 624 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169997</link>
    <description>Identification evidence without a prior test identification parade is not automatically unreliable; where witnesses had a clear chance to see the accused at close quarters and one accused was already known to them, in-court identification may remain credible. For Section 397 IPC, robbery committed by an offender armed with a deadly weapon visible to the victim and capable of creating terror satisfies the word &quot;uses&quot;; actual infliction of injury is not required. Section 397 is tied to the individual act of the accused, but the conviction remained sustainable because each accused was himself found armed with a deadly weapon, independent of Section 34 IPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 624 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169997</link>
      <description>Identification evidence without a prior test identification parade is not automatically unreliable; where witnesses had a clear chance to see the accused at close quarters and one accused was already known to them, in-court identification may remain credible. For Section 397 IPC, robbery committed by an offender armed with a deadly weapon visible to the victim and capable of creating terror satisfies the word &quot;uses&quot;; actual infliction of injury is not required. Section 397 is tied to the individual act of the accused, but the conviction remained sustainable because each accused was himself found armed with a deadly weapon, independent of Section 34 IPC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>