TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction for murder and criminal intimidation could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a related chance witness, in the face of material improvements, delay in recording his statement, and doubt regarding the time of occurrence.
Analysis: The prosecution case rested principally on the testimony of a single eye-witness who was closely related to the deceased and whose presence at the scene was found to be chance-based. His statement under section 161 was inconsistent with his trial version on material particulars, including the purpose of his presence and the sequence of events. His conduct after the occurrence, the delay in recording his statement, the absence of corroborative recovery of the motorcycle, and the non-examination of independent witnesses weakened his account. The medical evidence showing semi-digested food and the testimony of another witness created doubt about the time of occurrence, and the attempted explanation through later improvements in prosecution evidence was not found reliable. In these circumstances, it was unsafe to base conviction solely on his testimony.
Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the accused were entitled to acquittal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
