<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1319 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308009</link>
    <description>An acquittal may be reversed in appeal only on very substantial and compelling reasons, or where the acquittal is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. Applying that standard, the Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence trustworthy, including eyewitness testimony, prompt FIR, medical evidence of gunshot injuries, recovery of the weapon, and the accused&#039;s own version in the counter-report. The view that the firing was accidental was held to rest on surmise and conjecture. The High Court&#039;s reversal of acquittal under Section 307 IPC was upheld, no interference was called for with the conviction under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, and the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 16:31:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1319 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308009</link>
      <description>An acquittal may be reversed in appeal only on very substantial and compelling reasons, or where the acquittal is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. Applying that standard, the Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence trustworthy, including eyewitness testimony, prompt FIR, medical evidence of gunshot injuries, recovery of the weapon, and the accused&#039;s own version in the counter-report. The view that the firing was accidental was held to rest on surmise and conjecture. The High Court&#039;s reversal of acquittal under Section 307 IPC was upheld, no interference was called for with the conviction under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, and the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>