https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305047 Concurrent findings of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were held not to warrant interference under Article 136 absent manifest error, procedural illegality, or perversity. The Court treated the eye-witness account as natural and trustworthy, sufficient to prove that the appellants inflicted the initial knife blows, and regarded discrepancies, investigative lapses, and non-production of some articles as minor and non-fatal. The acquittal of certain co-accused for later events did not affect the separate role attributed to the appellants. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was rejected, and truth was severed from embellishment where the evidence permitted. The conviction was upheld. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:00:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305047 Concurrent findings of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were held not to warrant interference under Article 136 absent manifest error, procedural illegality, or perversity. The Court treated the eye-witness account as natural and trustworthy, sufficient to prove that the appellants inflicted the initial knife blows, and regarded discrepancies, investigative lapses, and non-production of some articles as minor and non-fatal. The acquittal of certain co-accused for later events did not affect the separate role attributed to the appellants. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was rejected, and truth was severed from embellishment where the evidence permitted. The conviction was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305047