<?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>2006 (11) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183953</link>
    <description>A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable where the proved circumstances form a complete chain incompatible with innocence. The SC treated reliable last-seen evidence, a voluntary extra-judicial confession before a responsible community leader, lawful recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements, and forensic corroboration from handwriting and fingerprint comparison as sufficient proof. It held that partial retraction, delay in recording one statement, and the exclusion of one inadmissible third-party statement did not break the overall chain. The Court also found no shown taint in the investigation that displaced the otherwise trustworthy evidence, and upheld the conviction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183953</link>
      <description>A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable where the proved circumstances form a complete chain incompatible with innocence. The SC treated reliable last-seen evidence, a voluntary extra-judicial confession before a responsible community leader, lawful recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements, and forensic corroboration from handwriting and fingerprint comparison as sufficient proof. It held that partial retraction, delay in recording one statement, and the exclusion of one inadmissible third-party statement did not break the overall chain. The Court also found no shown taint in the investigation that displaced the otherwise trustworthy evidence, and upheld the conviction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>