<?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>2002 (10) TMI 815 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299531</link>
    <description>Related or interested witnesses are not to be discarded mechanically; their testimony may sustain conviction if it is otherwise cogent and reliable. The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no general application in India, so the court may separate truth from falsehood and uphold the conviction on the trustworthy residue of evidence. For liability under Section 149 IPC, proof of individual overt acts is not always necessary, because common object may be inferred from the assembly&#039;s conduct, weapons and surrounding circumstances. Credible ocular evidence was not displaced by the alleged medical variance, and the conviction was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:04:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 815 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299531</link>
      <description>Related or interested witnesses are not to be discarded mechanically; their testimony may sustain conviction if it is otherwise cogent and reliable. The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no general application in India, so the court may separate truth from falsehood and uphold the conviction on the trustworthy residue of evidence. For liability under Section 149 IPC, proof of individual overt acts is not always necessary, because common object may be inferred from the assembly&#039;s conduct, weapons and surrounding circumstances. Credible ocular evidence was not displaced by the alleged medical variance, and the conviction was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>