<?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 852 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299297</link>
    <description>In circumstantial evidence cases, conviction is sustainable only where each proved circumstance forms a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the SC applied that standard and treated the surrounding conduct, presence at the scene, isolation of the victims, murders, disposal of bodies and vehicle as collectively sufficient. Fingerprint matches, recoveries of weapons and incriminating articles, and identification evidence were accepted as corroborative material, with delay in the test identification parade not vitiating it absent material infirmity. False or evasive answers in the Section 313 statement, including failure to explain presence, conduct and injuries, were treated as an additional incriminating circumstance reinforcing the prosecution case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 11:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 852 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299297</link>
      <description>In circumstantial evidence cases, conviction is sustainable only where each proved circumstance forms a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the SC applied that standard and treated the surrounding conduct, presence at the scene, isolation of the victims, murders, disposal of bodies and vehicle as collectively sufficient. Fingerprint matches, recoveries of weapons and incriminating articles, and identification evidence were accepted as corroborative material, with delay in the test identification parade not vitiating it absent material infirmity. False or evasive answers in the Section 313 statement, including failure to explain presence, conduct and injuries, were treated as an additional incriminating circumstance reinforcing the prosecution case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>