<?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>1974 (8) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295881</link>
    <description>In criminal appeals, concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed absent exceptional circumstances, and an acquittal should not be reversed where the trial court&#039;s view is a reasonable one and two views of the evidence are possible. Applying that principle, the SC found the eye-witness account against Nathoo, Dr. R. Kohli and Banney Khan unsafe for uncorroborated reliance, and treated the dying declarations with caution; their conviction was set aside. By contrast, Balak Ram&#039;s conviction was sustained because concurrent findings that he fired the fatal shot were supported by ballistic evidence, his alibi was rejected, and no ground existed to interfere with the sentence, including death.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295881</link>
      <description>In criminal appeals, concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed absent exceptional circumstances, and an acquittal should not be reversed where the trial court&#039;s view is a reasonable one and two views of the evidence are possible. Applying that principle, the SC found the eye-witness account against Nathoo, Dr. R. Kohli and Banney Khan unsafe for uncorroborated reliance, and treated the dying declarations with caution; their conviction was set aside. By contrast, Balak Ram&#039;s conviction was sustained because concurrent findings that he fired the fatal shot were supported by ballistic evidence, his alibi was rejected, and no ground existed to interfere with the sentence, including death.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>