<?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>2000 (4) TMI 857 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314432</link>
    <description>In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, guilt can be sustained only where the proved circumstances form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. Motive, prior relationship, conduct before and after the occurrence, and recoveries of blood-stained articles at the instances of appellants 1 and 2 were held sufficient, and the false explanation of appellant 4 operated as an itional link; convictions under Sections 302 and 120B IPC were maintained for appellants 1, 2 and 4. Against appellant 3, the only reliable circumstance was being seen near the deceased&#039;s house, while the remaining material was contradicted and untrustworthy; the chain was incomplete and his conviction was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:27:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 857 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314432</link>
      <description>In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, guilt can be sustained only where the proved circumstances form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. Motive, prior relationship, conduct before and after the occurrence, and recoveries of blood-stained articles at the instances of appellants 1 and 2 were held sufficient, and the false explanation of appellant 4 operated as an itional link; convictions under Sections 302 and 120B IPC were maintained for appellants 1, 2 and 4. Against appellant 3, the only reliable circumstance was being seen near the deceased&#039;s house, while the remaining material was contradicted and untrustworthy; the chain was incomplete and his conviction was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>