<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1335 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464043</link>
    <description>A confession recorded under section 15 of TADA can sustain conviction if it is voluntary, truthful and properly recorded. The Court found the first appellant&#039;s confession complied with statutory procedure, treated the retraction as an afterthought, and relied on independent corroboration from handwriting evidence and a witness account to affirm the conviction. By contrast, the material against the second appellant did not prove involvement in the manufacture, carriage, planting or explosion of the device beyond reasonable doubt, and the uncorroborated implicating evidence was unsafe to accept. His conviction was therefore not sustained and he was given the benefit of doubt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 19:00:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1335 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464043</link>
      <description>A confession recorded under section 15 of TADA can sustain conviction if it is voluntary, truthful and properly recorded. The Court found the first appellant&#039;s confession complied with statutory procedure, treated the retraction as an afterthought, and relied on independent corroboration from handwriting evidence and a witness account to affirm the conviction. By contrast, the material against the second appellant did not prove involvement in the manufacture, carriage, planting or explosion of the device beyond reasonable doubt, and the uncorroborated implicating evidence was unsafe to accept. His conviction was therefore not sustained and he was given the benefit of doubt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>