Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court overturns acquittal, sentences two to life for murder based on witness credibility and forensic evidence.</h1> <h3>State of Punjab Versus Wasson Singh And Five Others</h3> State of Punjab Versus Wasson Singh And Five Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court.2. Credibility of eyewitnesses Resham Singh (P.W.2) and Bachan Singh (P.W.3).3. Motive of the accused.4. Promptness and reliability of the First Information Report (F.I.R.).5. Investigation by Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal.6. Recovery of the rifle and ballistic evidence.7. Presence and participation of each accused in the murders.Detailed Analysis:1. Acquittal of the Accused by the High Court:The High Court acquitted the accused based on several reasons, including the close relationship of the eyewitnesses to the deceased, lack of established motive for most accused, antecedents of the eyewitnesses, and perceived improbabilities in the prosecution's story.2. Credibility of Eyewitnesses Resham Singh (P.W.2) and Bachan Singh (P.W.3):The High Court rejected the testimony of Resham Singh and Bachan Singh due to their close relationship with the deceased, their criminal antecedents, and inconsistencies in their statements. The Supreme Court, however, found that discrepancies in collateral facts were not sufficient to reject their testimony, especially given the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. and the general consistency in their accounts regarding the main incident.3. Motive of the Accused:The trial court found that Wasson Singh had a strong motive to murder Hazara Singh due to past enmity. The High Court, however, was not convinced of the motive for the other accused. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court regarding Wasson Singh's motive and also found sufficient evidence of Mukhtar Singh's motive due to a previous quarrel.4. Promptness and Reliability of the First Information Report (F.I.R.):The F.I.R. was lodged by Resham Singh at 4.30 p.m., shortly after the occurrence at 3.30 p.m., and reached the Magistrate by 6.30 p.m. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this promptitude, which provided valuable corroboration of Resham Singh's testimony and made it reliable.5. Investigation by Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal:The High Court criticized the investigation, particularly the delay in sending the crime cartridges to the ballistic expert and the presence of Joginder Singh near the crime scene. The Supreme Court acknowledged the biased investigation but found that it did not necessarily invalidate the evidence of the recovery of the rifle and the crime cartridges.6. Recovery of the Rifle and Ballistic Evidence:The trial court and the Supreme Court found that the rifle recovered from Mukhtar Singh was linked to the crime cartridges found at the scene. Despite the High Court's doubts, the Supreme Court accepted the ballistic expert's report and the circumstances of the rifle's recovery as corroborative evidence against Mukhtar Singh.7. Presence and Participation of Each Accused in the Murders:The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to convict Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh for the murder of Hazara Singh based on the eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence. However, it found the evidence against the other accused insufficient, particularly in the absence of a clear motive and reliable identification during the pursuit.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the acquittal of Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh for the murder of Hazara Singh and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The acquittal of the other accused was maintained due to insufficient evidence.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found