https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461429 Circumstantial evidence sustained the kidnapping-for-ransom murder convictions because eyewitness, telephone, medical, forensic, recovery and conspiracy evidence formed a complete chain linking the appellants to the offence. Discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was admissible because police custody, rather than formal arrest, is required when information leads to a fact discovered; the recoveries could therefore be relied upon. Sentencing required individualised assessment: the aggravating circumstances justified confirmation of death sentences for the two male appellants, while mitigating circumstances warranted commutation of the woman appellant's sentence to life imprisonment. en-us Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 10:43:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461429 Circumstantial evidence sustained the kidnapping-for-ransom murder convictions because eyewitness, telephone, medical, forensic, recovery and conspiracy evidence formed a complete chain linking the appellants to the offence. Discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was admissible because police custody, rather than formal arrest, is required when information leads to a fact discovered; the recoveries could therefore be relied upon. Sentencing required individualised assessment: the aggravating circumstances justified confirmation of death sentences for the two male appellants, while mitigating circumstances warranted commutation of the woman appellant's sentence to life imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461429