<?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>2004 (12) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302415</link>
    <description>Related witness testimony is not to be rejected merely because of relationship with the deceased; it must be assessed for credibility, and false implication requires a proper foundation. On the facts, identification was upheld because the occurrence was illuminated by moonlight, nearby lights and an electric pole, and the evidence was corroborated by the dying declaration and surrounding circumstances. Section 34 applies where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention, which may be inferred from proved facts; it was correctly invoked where one accused restrained the deceased and another inflicted knife blows. The plea that better medical treatment might have saved the deceased was held irrelevant to murder liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 14:16:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302415</link>
      <description>Related witness testimony is not to be rejected merely because of relationship with the deceased; it must be assessed for credibility, and false implication requires a proper foundation. On the facts, identification was upheld because the occurrence was illuminated by moonlight, nearby lights and an electric pole, and the evidence was corroborated by the dying declaration and surrounding circumstances. Section 34 applies where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention, which may be inferred from proved facts; it was correctly invoked where one accused restrained the deceased and another inflicted knife blows. The plea that better medical treatment might have saved the deceased was held irrelevant to murder liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>