<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1509 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456754</link>
    <description>Reliable CCTV footage, treated as an electronic record, together with corroborative eyewitness evidence, recovery of the accused&#039;s clothes and stolen articles, and expert comparison of images, was sufficient to establish identity and guilt; the convictions for murder, robbery and related offences were sustained. The conviction under Section 404 IPC was set aside because that provision applies to dishonest misappropriation of property known to have belonged to a deceased person, not to property taken in the same transaction as murder and robbery. The death sentence was found unwarranted on the facts and was commuted to life imprisonment with a minimum non-remittable term of 25 years, with the remaining sentences ordered to run consecutively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 20:08:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1509 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456754</link>
      <description>Reliable CCTV footage, treated as an electronic record, together with corroborative eyewitness evidence, recovery of the accused&#039;s clothes and stolen articles, and expert comparison of images, was sufficient to establish identity and guilt; the convictions for murder, robbery and related offences were sustained. The conviction under Section 404 IPC was set aside because that provision applies to dishonest misappropriation of property known to have belonged to a deceased person, not to property taken in the same transaction as murder and robbery. The death sentence was found unwarranted on the facts and was commuted to life imprisonment with a minimum non-remittable term of 25 years, with the remaining sentences ordered to run consecutively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>