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>Witness testimony cannot be discarded entirely due to exaggerations or embellishments in criminal cases</h1> <h3>Menoka Malik and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal and Ors.</h3> Menoka Malik and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Scope of interference by the Supreme Court with a High Court judgment affirming an acquittal.2. Evaluation of eyewitness testimonies and their consistency.3. Consideration of material evidence related to charges other than murder.4. Conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence.5. Application of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of Interference by the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court addressed the preliminary question regarding its power to interfere with a High Court judgment affirming an acquittal. It was clarified that the restriction under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court cited 'Dharma v. Nirmal Singh' and 'State of Rajasthan v. Islam' to affirm that it could review the entire material to ensure justice if the High Court's view was unreasonable.2. Evaluation of Eyewitness Testimonies:The trial court had observed that several eyewitnesses revealed material facts for the first time during the trial, which were not mentioned during the police investigation, leading to their acquittal. The Supreme Court, however, revisited the testimonies of PWs 5, 7, and 14 and found no significant variations in their accounts. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies are natural and do not necessarily discredit the entire testimony. The principle that a few consistent eyewitness accounts can sustain a conviction in cases involving many offenders and victims was reiterated, citing 'Masalti v. State of U.P.'3. Consideration of Material Evidence Related to Charges Other Than Murder:The High Court and trial court had overlooked evidence concerning charges other than murder, such as house burning and unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court dismissed the evidence related to house burning due to non-production of burnt articles, despite the seizure list (Ex. 1) indicating otherwise. The Court emphasized that evidence on unlawful assembly and common object could be inferred from the available material, and separate evidence for these aspects was unnecessary.4. Conflict Between Ocular Testimony and Medical Evidence:The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ignored the fact that both lathis and sharp-edged weapons were used in the assault. It reiterated that ocular testimony should prevail over medical evidence if found trustworthy and credible, citing 'State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal.' The Court found that the High Court failed to consider whether the trial court's judgment was perverse due to overlooking material evidence.5. Application of Revisional Jurisdiction by the High Court:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not applying its judicial mind to determine whether the trial court's judgment was perverse. It noted that the High Court did not consider evidence related to charges other than murder and failed to provide cogent reasons for its conclusion. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality, or perversity in the lower court's judgment, citing 'Sheetala Prasad v. Shree Kant.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction properly and overlooked material evidence. It set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for reconsideration on merits, emphasizing that the observations made should not influence the High Court's decision. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with the law.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found