<?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>1973 (8) TMI 160 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175526</link>
    <description>In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but it must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and interfere only where the acquitting view is clearly unreasonable. A conviction may rest on a single eye-witness if the testimony is intrinsically reliable and materially corroborated. Here, the principal witness was supported by the prompt first information, a dying declaration, surrounding circumstances, and recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, while medical evidence did not displace the prosecution case. The non-examination of some witnesses and the omission to put one circumstance under section 342 were held not fatal on these facts, and the conviction for murder was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (8) TMI 160 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175526</link>
      <description>In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but it must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and interfere only where the acquitting view is clearly unreasonable. A conviction may rest on a single eye-witness if the testimony is intrinsically reliable and materially corroborated. Here, the principal witness was supported by the prompt first information, a dying declaration, surrounding circumstances, and recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, while medical evidence did not displace the prosecution case. The non-examination of some witnesses and the omission to put one circumstance under section 342 were held not fatal on these facts, and the conviction for murder was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>