<?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>1976 (11) TMI 200 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184271</link>
    <description>Settled possession defeated the plea of private defence: although the complainant had encroached on the chak road, he was in actual peaceful possession, so the appellants could not use force to dispossess him. The prosecution was not weakened by injuries on the accused because the evidence explained a mutual fight and did not cast doubt on the occurrence. The eye-witness version of the fatal abdominal blow matched the medical evidence, supporting the murder conviction. However, common intention to cause grievous hurt was not proved against the other appellants, so the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside while the lesser convictions were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 15:46:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 200 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184271</link>
      <description>Settled possession defeated the plea of private defence: although the complainant had encroached on the chak road, he was in actual peaceful possession, so the appellants could not use force to dispossess him. The prosecution was not weakened by injuries on the accused because the evidence explained a mutual fight and did not cast doubt on the occurrence. The eye-witness version of the fatal abdominal blow matched the medical evidence, supporting the murder conviction. However, common intention to cause grievous hurt was not proved against the other appellants, so the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside while the lesser convictions were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>