<?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>2013 (5) TMI 1068 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313524</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where unimpeachable investigation material negates the accusations and continuation would be an abuse of process. On the material collected, including witness statements, medical and forensic reports, DNA analysis, polygraph testing and call detail analysis, the allegations against two accused were found unproved and their presence near the incident was negatived. The High Court noted that the trial court had relied selectively on complaint material while disregarding contrary scientific and documentary evidence. It also held that Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is a rule of evidence for trial and cannot be used to justify issuance of summons at the cognizance stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:07:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 1068 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313524</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where unimpeachable investigation material negates the accusations and continuation would be an abuse of process. On the material collected, including witness statements, medical and forensic reports, DNA analysis, polygraph testing and call detail analysis, the allegations against two accused were found unproved and their presence near the incident was negatived. The High Court noted that the trial court had relied selectively on complaint material while disregarding contrary scientific and documentary evidence. It also held that Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is a rule of evidence for trial and cannot be used to justify issuance of summons at the cognizance stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>