<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1891 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311196</link>
    <description>A conviction for murder based on a solitary eyewitness can stand only if the testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. The Court found the eyewitness account unsafe because the witness&#039;s presence and version were doubtful, material accompanying witnesses were not examined, the conduct attributed to the witnesses was unnatural, and the medical evidence with the pattern of injuries did not support the claim that only the appellants were the assailants. The Court also noted that the High Court treated one witness as an eyewitness without adequate discussion. On that evidence, the conviction could not be sustained and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1891 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311196</link>
      <description>A conviction for murder based on a solitary eyewitness can stand only if the testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. The Court found the eyewitness account unsafe because the witness&#039;s presence and version were doubtful, material accompanying witnesses were not examined, the conduct attributed to the witnesses was unnatural, and the medical evidence with the pattern of injuries did not support the claim that only the appellants were the assailants. The Court also noted that the High Court treated one witness as an eyewitness without adequate discussion. On that evidence, the conviction could not be sustained and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>