<?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>1950 (10) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312717</link>
    <description>A dying declaration is substantive evidence of the cause of death, and an imperfect examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not, by itself, make otherwise admissible evidence unusable unless actual prejudice is shown. The note also explains that consistent eye-witness evidence and the deceased&#039;s declaration can establish the assailant&#039;s participation, while a later declaration that omits the names of alleged instigators may create a material inconsistency. On that view, the actual assailant&#039;s conviction was sustained, and the co-accused were given the benefit of doubt on the instigation allegation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:34:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (10) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312717</link>
      <description>A dying declaration is substantive evidence of the cause of death, and an imperfect examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not, by itself, make otherwise admissible evidence unusable unless actual prejudice is shown. The note also explains that consistent eye-witness evidence and the deceased&#039;s declaration can establish the assailant&#039;s participation, while a later declaration that omits the names of alleged instigators may create a material inconsistency. On that view, the actual assailant&#039;s conviction was sustained, and the co-accused were given the benefit of doubt on the instigation allegation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>