<?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 (12) TMI 1232 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304978</link>
    <description>Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not by themselves create reasonable doubt unless the contradiction is direct and material. Here, the prosecutrix&#039;s testimony, medical tenderness, and forensic findings of semen and spermatozoa were read together, and the absence of injuries or an intact hymen was not treated as conclusive against limited penetration or attempted sexual assault. The prosecutrix was found competent and reliable, and her evidence was corroborated by an eye-witness account, prompt reporting, recovery of articles, and forensic material. The appellate court was entitled to interfere with the acquittal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and adopted an unsustainable approach, so the conviction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2022 10:52:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 1232 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304978</link>
      <description>Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not by themselves create reasonable doubt unless the contradiction is direct and material. Here, the prosecutrix&#039;s testimony, medical tenderness, and forensic findings of semen and spermatozoa were read together, and the absence of injuries or an intact hymen was not treated as conclusive against limited penetration or attempted sexual assault. The prosecutrix was found competent and reliable, and her evidence was corroborated by an eye-witness account, prompt reporting, recovery of articles, and forensic material. The appellate court was entitled to interfere with the acquittal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and adopted an unsustainable approach, so the conviction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>