<?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>1995 (2) TMI 445 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180187</link>
    <description>Material discrepancies in the testimony of the two police witnesses about the place of recovery of the pistol and the number of cartridges, coupled with the absence of independent corroboration, made the prosecution version unreliable. The Supreme Court also found a serious fairness defect because the complainant, who effected the arrest and filed the complaint, continued the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That overlap was inconsistent with a fair and impartial investigation. On these facts, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the prosecution case was held unsafe for reliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:04:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 445 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180187</link>
      <description>Material discrepancies in the testimony of the two police witnesses about the place of recovery of the pistol and the number of cartridges, coupled with the absence of independent corroboration, made the prosecution version unreliable. The Supreme Court also found a serious fairness defect because the complainant, who effected the arrest and filed the complaint, continued the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That overlap was inconsistent with a fair and impartial investigation. On these facts, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the prosecution case was held unsafe for reliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>