https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275467 A conviction under TADA required proof of the statutory ingredients of a terrorist act, and it could not stand where the prosecution evidence did not establish those elements. Circumstantial evidence against some accused was rejected because the alleged recovery, motive and disclosure material did not form admissible proof, repeated use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not create successive discoveries of the same fact, and specimen handwriting taken outside a pending proceeding could not validly support authorship under Section 73. By contrast, the evidence against one accused formed a complete chain through a voluntary disclosure and recovery of the body, sustaining the murder conviction while the conspiracy conviction failed. en-us Thu, 12 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Dec 2022 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275467 A conviction under TADA required proof of the statutory ingredients of a terrorist act, and it could not stand where the prosecution evidence did not establish those elements. Circumstantial evidence against some accused was rejected because the alleged recovery, motive and disclosure material did not form admissible proof, repeated use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not create successive discoveries of the same fact, and specimen handwriting taken outside a pending proceeding could not validly support authorship under Section 73. By contrast, the evidence against one accused formed a complete chain through a voluntary disclosure and recovery of the body, sustaining the murder conviction while the conspiracy conviction failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275467