<?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>2019 (7) TMI 2070 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464054</link>
    <description>A coordinated conspiracy linking the murder of Haren Pandya and the attack on Jagdish Tiwari was found to be established through direct and circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, recoveries, mobile records and forensic material, and the trial court&#039;s findings on murder and conspiracy were restored for the principal accused. The Court upheld confessional statements recorded under section 32 of POTA as voluntary and admissible because the statutory safeguards were substantially followed and the confessions were independently corroborated; a confession remained usable against its maker but not against a co-accused merely because of joint trial. It also found no sufficient basis for further investigation or re-investigation, as the challenge rested on speculative material and issues already attained finality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:21:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2070 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464054</link>
      <description>A coordinated conspiracy linking the murder of Haren Pandya and the attack on Jagdish Tiwari was found to be established through direct and circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, recoveries, mobile records and forensic material, and the trial court&#039;s findings on murder and conspiracy were restored for the principal accused. The Court upheld confessional statements recorded under section 32 of POTA as voluntary and admissible because the statutory safeguards were substantially followed and the confessions were independently corroborated; a confession remained usable against its maker but not against a co-accused merely because of joint trial. It also found no sufficient basis for further investigation or re-investigation, as the challenge rested on speculative material and issues already attained finality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>