<?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>1978 (6) TMI 171 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466658</link>
    <description>Criminal miscarriage without consent was proved through the deceased&#039;s son and supporting medical evidence, but the prosecution did not establish beyond doubt that the deceased&#039;s death was caused by the abortion. The post-mortem certificate was admissible and properly proved, yet the evidence was insufficient to link the shock, peritonitis and abdominal wound to the criminal abortion, so the deceased&#039;s statement could not operate as a dying declaration for that purpose. Conviction under Section 314 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not stand, but the evidence justified conviction under Section 313 read with Section 34, with corresponding reduction of sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:30:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (6) TMI 171 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466658</link>
      <description>Criminal miscarriage without consent was proved through the deceased&#039;s son and supporting medical evidence, but the prosecution did not establish beyond doubt that the deceased&#039;s death was caused by the abortion. The post-mortem certificate was admissible and properly proved, yet the evidence was insufficient to link the shock, peritonitis and abdominal wound to the criminal abortion, so the deceased&#039;s statement could not operate as a dying declaration for that purpose. Conviction under Section 314 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not stand, but the evidence justified conviction under Section 313 read with Section 34, with corresponding reduction of sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>