<?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>1977 (4) TMI 172 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175985</link>
    <description>Accomplice evidence can support a conviction only when materially corroborated by independent evidence implicating the accused, and that safeguard justified affirming the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The conviction of accused No. 3 and accused Nos. 9 to 11 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was sustained because corroborated eyewitness, discovery and circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution, while retracted confessions recorded without proper safeguards were excluded. The omission to hear the accused on sentence did not require remand because an effective opportunity was afforded, and the death sentence was upheld on the proved facts as the murders were found to be exceptionally brutal and deliberate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 172 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175985</link>
      <description>Accomplice evidence can support a conviction only when materially corroborated by independent evidence implicating the accused, and that safeguard justified affirming the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The conviction of accused No. 3 and accused Nos. 9 to 11 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was sustained because corroborated eyewitness, discovery and circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution, while retracted confessions recorded without proper safeguards were excluded. The omission to hear the accused on sentence did not require remand because an effective opportunity was afforded, and the death sentence was upheld on the proved facts as the murders were found to be exceptionally brutal and deliberate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>