https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174618 A confession made to a State Reserve Police officer on duty was held not to attract the exclusionary rule, because the officer was not shown to have investigative powers under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the merits, the prosecution established guilt through a complete circumstantial chain: prompt apprehension at the scene, recovery of the pistol and handkerchief, forensic linkage to the killing, medical proof of homicidal death, and trustworthy portions of hostile testimony. The absence of some eyewitness support and ancillary recoveries did not create reasonable doubt. The first accused's acquittal was reversed and conviction recorded, while the second accused's acquittal was maintained. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174618 A confession made to a State Reserve Police officer on duty was held not to attract the exclusionary rule, because the officer was not shown to have investigative powers under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the merits, the prosecution established guilt through a complete circumstantial chain: prompt apprehension at the scene, recovery of the pistol and handkerchief, forensic linkage to the killing, medical proof of homicidal death, and trustworthy portions of hostile testimony. The absence of some eyewitness support and ancillary recoveries did not create reasonable doubt. The first accused's acquittal was reversed and conviction recorded, while the second accused's acquittal was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174618