<?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>2012 (5) TMI 843 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295729</link>
    <description>Conviction for dowry death and cruelty cannot be sustained on embellished evidence that is materially inconsistent with earlier statements and unsupported by corroboration. The alleged dowry demand was not reflected in prior witness statements, the claimed sale of the house was not credibly proved, and the forensic material did not support the prosecution theory of poisoning; the appellant was therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. An acquittal may be reversed only where the trial court view is perverse or otherwise unsustainable, and no such exceptional ground was shown here. The High Court&#039;s interference was therefore unjustified, and the acquittal was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 843 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295729</link>
      <description>Conviction for dowry death and cruelty cannot be sustained on embellished evidence that is materially inconsistent with earlier statements and unsupported by corroboration. The alleged dowry demand was not reflected in prior witness statements, the claimed sale of the house was not credibly proved, and the forensic material did not support the prosecution theory of poisoning; the appellant was therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. An acquittal may be reversed only where the trial court view is perverse or otherwise unsustainable, and no such exceptional ground was shown here. The High Court&#039;s interference was therefore unjustified, and the acquittal was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>