<?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>1998 (9) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175040</link>
    <description>At the charge-framing stage, the court may rely only on materials collected during investigation that are legally admissible, and not on evidence that may emerge later at trial. The text states that witness statements showing only an unrelated meeting were insufficient to infer a criminal conspiracy or abetment, because a conspiracy cannot be built on another presumption. It further notes that a co-accused&#039;s confession, by itself, cannot sustain charges unless supported by independent material, and that a self-exculpatory statement is not admissible as a confession. The result described is that the charges against both appellants were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:22:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175040</link>
      <description>At the charge-framing stage, the court may rely only on materials collected during investigation that are legally admissible, and not on evidence that may emerge later at trial. The text states that witness statements showing only an unrelated meeting were insufficient to infer a criminal conspiracy or abetment, because a conspiracy cannot be built on another presumption. It further notes that a co-accused&#039;s confession, by itself, cannot sustain charges unless supported by independent material, and that a self-exculpatory statement is not admissible as a confession. The result described is that the charges against both appellants were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>