<?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>2007 (6) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185789</link>
    <description>An extra-judicial confession can sustain a conviction only if it is voluntary, clear, specific, unambiguous, and made to unbiased and credible witnesses; where the words, place, and surrounding circumstances are inconsistent, reliance becomes unsafe. The article further states that a conviction cannot be supported on an incriminating circumstance not put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the accused must have a fair opportunity to explain every material circumstance. Applying those principles, the alleged confession and the kerosene-on-clothes circumstance were treated as unreliable or unusable, and the prosecution was said to have failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:02:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185789</link>
      <description>An extra-judicial confession can sustain a conviction only if it is voluntary, clear, specific, unambiguous, and made to unbiased and credible witnesses; where the words, place, and surrounding circumstances are inconsistent, reliance becomes unsafe. The article further states that a conviction cannot be supported on an incriminating circumstance not put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the accused must have a fair opportunity to explain every material circumstance. Applying those principles, the alleged confession and the kerosene-on-clothes circumstance were treated as unreliable or unusable, and the prosecution was said to have failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>