<?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>1994 (2) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280855</link>
    <description>Where the evidence showed that the fatal assault was not carried out with the alleged deadly weapons and the injuries were mainly caused by lathis, the Court found no proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The proved facts supported only knowledge that death was likely, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The convictions for grievous hurt and simple hurt were upheld because the eye-witness and injured witness testimony was consistent and minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 10:51:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280855</link>
      <description>Where the evidence showed that the fatal assault was not carried out with the alleged deadly weapons and the injuries were mainly caused by lathis, the Court found no proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The proved facts supported only knowledge that death was likely, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The convictions for grievous hurt and simple hurt were upheld because the eye-witness and injured witness testimony was consistent and minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>