<?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>2008 (4) TMI 803 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282930</link>
    <description>Section 227 CrPC permits discharge where the material, even if accepted at face value, does not disclose sufficient ground to proceed. In a conspiracy prosecution, the alleged agreement may be inferred from circumstances, but those circumstances must form a complete chain and cannot rest on suspicion or motive alone. On the facts, the prosecution relied on circumstantial material such as alleged threats and the deceased&#039;s prior relationship with a co-accused, but several co-accused had already been discharged on the same foundation and the State&#039;s challenge to that discharge had failed. In that setting, no sufficient ground survived to continue the case against the appellant, and the refusal to discharge was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 803 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282930</link>
      <description>Section 227 CrPC permits discharge where the material, even if accepted at face value, does not disclose sufficient ground to proceed. In a conspiracy prosecution, the alleged agreement may be inferred from circumstances, but those circumstances must form a complete chain and cannot rest on suspicion or motive alone. On the facts, the prosecution relied on circumstantial material such as alleged threats and the deceased&#039;s prior relationship with a co-accused, but several co-accused had already been discharged on the same foundation and the State&#039;s challenge to that discharge had failed. In that setting, no sufficient ground survived to continue the case against the appellant, and the refusal to discharge was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>