<?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 (7) TMI 1081 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299292</link>
    <description>Section 313 CrPC requires every material inculpatory circumstance to be put to the accused specifically, distinctly and separately so the accused has a fair chance to explain the prosecution case in conformity with natural justice. If the examination is perfunctory or too general, the court should ordinarily exclude the unput material from consideration unless no prejudice has resulted. On the facts described, the accused was not confronted with the decisive circumstances relied on by the trial court, and the questions did not provide a real opportunity to answer them. The defective examination was therefore treated as fatal to the conviction, and relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1081 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299292</link>
      <description>Section 313 CrPC requires every material inculpatory circumstance to be put to the accused specifically, distinctly and separately so the accused has a fair chance to explain the prosecution case in conformity with natural justice. If the examination is perfunctory or too general, the court should ordinarily exclude the unput material from consideration unless no prejudice has resulted. On the facts described, the accused was not confronted with the decisive circumstances relied on by the trial court, and the questions did not provide a real opportunity to answer them. The defective examination was therefore treated as fatal to the conviction, and relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>