Back
Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo C.J. & Dave, J.
Achhar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No 93 of 1952
Decided On : December 04, 1953
In the case of a witness, whose statement has not been found to be wholly true that part, which is not supported by other evidence, should be rejected while the part which is corroborated by other reliable evidence need not be thrown out. The duty of the court is to sift the evidence and find out the truth and not to throw out the testimony simply because a witness is found to be speaking untruth in one or more particulars. Of course hard and fast rules for guidance in believing or disbelieving testimony of a witness) cannot be laid down and it would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case for the court to reply upon or reject the evidence of a certain witness or witnesses. (Para 17)
There being a dispute between the complainants party and the accuseds party regarding the right and turn of taking water from the canal the party of the complainant, armed with various weapons went to the water head to assert their right. The party of the accused learning this also went there armed with various weapons and asserted their right. In consequence there was a free fight in which three persons of the complainants party and two of the accuseds party died and other received simply and grievous injuries. It was contended on behalf of the accused that since the complainants party had gone to the site off the supply of the water the members of the accuseds party were justified in going there to defend their rights and when they were attacked by members of the first party, they also had a right to defend themselves and, if in so defending themselves, injuries were caused to members of the complainants party, they were protected on account of their right of private defence. (Para 24)
It was held that the place from which water was supplied belonged to the Government and the appellants could not rightly make use of any force, for driving out the complainants party from the tail of the canal. Even if it be assumed for arguments sake that the complainants party was bent upon cutting off the supply of water by use of force, the accuseds party had no right to decide the matter by a trial of strength. The proper course for its members was to have recourse to public authorities and get the matter decided. The very fact that they went in a body armed with sharp and cutting weapons and the further fact that a fight took place immediately after the second party reached at the spot shows that the appellants were also determined to decide the issue by strength of arms. Under the circumstances the plea of exercise of private defence cannot be available to the accused. (Para 25 & 26)
2. The fact giving rise to this case are that on the 15th of May, 1950 at about 12 in the noon one Karamsingh, son of Basawansingh, resident of 8 N.N.B. in the district of Ganganagar lodged a long report at the Police Station, Pandampur which is about five miles distant from the site of occurrence. The said report, in brief, was that a murraba of land belonging to the Government was allotted to Makhansingh, Pyarasingh and Tarasingh, sons of one Jagsingh for temporary cultivation for one year. Its term of one year had expired after the last crop but these persons had cultivated kharif crop and, therefore, his father who was a mir-ab forbade them from watering that murraba until it was allotted to them again. His father had also told them that no water would be supplied to that plot and, therefore, these people had a grouse against him. On the afternoon of 13th May, 1950, he had begun watering his plot at 2 Oclock and when he had watered it! for only four hours, the flow of water began to decrease. Thereupon he went to the moga to find out the reason for the same. He found that Hazara-singh, Tarasingh, Acharsingh, Makhansingh, Pyarasingh, Barasingh, another Pyarasingh, Bantasingh and Santasingh (appellants) were standing there. They were armed with burchhas and guns and had diverted the water in the murraba of one Amarsingh and when he asked them why they had done so, they replied that they were under the impression that it was his furthers turn and, therefore they had done so because he did not allow Makhansingh, Tarasingh and Pyarasingh to take water into their murraba. They also asked him to send his father in order to decide the matter. He then went back and narrated the story to his father Next day at about 8 Oclock in the morning his father accompanied with Tejsingh, Kripalsingh and Sam-puransingh went to the Moga. He himself and his uncle Badhawasingh with Surayan-singh, Mukhtarsingh, Balwantsingh and Channasingh also accompanied them. At that time one Phangansingh was watering his filed. His father asked him (Phangansingh) why he was watering his filed when it was his turn to water his filed. Thereupon Phangansingh replied that he had taken his turn rightly after Amarsingh. At that very time Mahalsingh, Bantasingh, Santasingh, Barasingh Pyarasingh, Achharsingh, Hazarasingh, Pyarasingh, Makhansingh and Tarasingh (appellants) came there from the side of Achharsinghs house. All of them had burchhas in their hands except Mahalsingh who had a gun in his possession. As soon as they reached Killa No. 25 belonging to Barasingh, they challenged Basawasinghs group and said that they would get the water diverted. Thereupon the arbitrators, Kripalsingh, Tejsingh and others tried to pacify but in vain, Hazarasingh challenged the opposite party to be alert and exhorted his companions to put them to death. Thereafter Mahalsingh fired the gun but it did not hit anybody. Pyarasingh thereupon took the gun from him and after loading it he shot Badhawasingh who fell down, Barasingh then gave burchha blow in Badhawasinghs stomach. Hazarasingh, Pyarasingh. Bantasingh, Tarasingh and Makhansingh (accused) attacked his father Basawasingh with burchhis and so he fell down on account of the injuries. Pyarasingh again fired at Surainsingh as a result of which he was also injured and fell down. Basawasinghs wife Guranditti tried to save her husband but Achharsingh (accused struck burchhi below on her force and hands Pyaras
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
