<?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>2025 (11) TMI 72 - KERALA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780604</link>
    <description>An injured witness&#039;s consistent testimony, corroborated by medical, scientific and surrounding circumstances evidence, was held sufficient to prove the accused&#039;s involvement in wrongful restraint and assault. The Court accepted the early medical records, wound certificate, treatment evidence, chemical analysis and spontaneous statements as corroborative, and rejected the defence of self-infliction for want of support. Applying the settled test for Section 307 IPC, it held that a fatal injury is not required; the accused&#039;s conduct, words, restraint and pouring of acid were enough to infer intention and knowledge. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 19:39:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 72 - KERALA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780604</link>
      <description>An injured witness&#039;s consistent testimony, corroborated by medical, scientific and surrounding circumstances evidence, was held sufficient to prove the accused&#039;s involvement in wrongful restraint and assault. The Court accepted the early medical records, wound certificate, treatment evidence, chemical analysis and spontaneous statements as corroborative, and rejected the defence of self-infliction for want of support. Applying the settled test for Section 307 IPC, it held that a fatal injury is not required; the accused&#039;s conduct, words, restraint and pouring of acid were enough to infer intention and knowledge. The conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>