<?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>1997 (7) TMI 659 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173992</link>
    <description>Related witnesses are not discredited merely because of relationship, but their evidence must be scrutinised carefully. On the facts, serious inconsistencies, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and admitted enmity between the parties rendered the prosecution version unsafe, especially because the witnesses implicated the appellant together with a person who had already died before the . A confession under Section 15 of the special Act was also tested against the requirements of voluntariness and truthfulness under the Evidence Act and CrPC. It was found inherently false because it did not substantially and truthfully admit the offence and wrongly attributed participation to a dead person, so it was discarded as unreliable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:39:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 659 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173992</link>
      <description>Related witnesses are not discredited merely because of relationship, but their evidence must be scrutinised carefully. On the facts, serious inconsistencies, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and admitted enmity between the parties rendered the prosecution version unsafe, especially because the witnesses implicated the appellant together with a person who had already died before the . A confession under Section 15 of the special Act was also tested against the requirements of voluntariness and truthfulness under the Evidence Act and CrPC. It was found inherently false because it did not substantially and truthfully admit the offence and wrongly attributed participation to a dead person, so it was discarded as unreliable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>