Case: Vidhya Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

1. Vidhya Singh, the appellant was a Gram Sewak with his headquarters at Bamor Kalan. On December 28, 1965, he was on his way from Bamor Kalan to another village. At about 2 p.m. when he was passing through the village Akoda he found Laxmichand (P.W. 1) and Babu Lal (P.W. 6) sitting on the Dehlan of one Mulla and chatting. He asked Laxmichand to give him some water for drinking Laxmichand asked P.W. 19 Kishanlal to bring some water for him Kishanlal brought some water and kept it on the verandah. The appellant drank that water. Uptill this stage there is no dispute. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant filthily abused Laxmichand for not getting the water himself; Laxmichand abused him back; then he picked up a stick which was lying there and beat Laxmichand on his arm as a result of which the arm of Laxmichand was fractured; on receiving the blow Laxmichand raised a hue and cry and at that stage several persons including the deceased Moti, P.W. 2 Mahavir Prasad, P.W. 3 Bharose and one Bhagwandas went to his help; at that stage it is said that the appellant stabbed Moti, Mahavir Prasad, Bharose and Bhagwandas and thereafter fled from the place; later he was caught in the village Mundri by some of the residents of Mundir and at that place he was assaulted.

Reasoning:
6. Both the trial court as well as the High Court have accept the prosecution case as to the circumstances under which the incident commenced. In our opinion neither the prosecution nor the accused have come out with the truthful version as to how the incident commenced. Admittedly the accused had no enmity with any of the injured persons. Therefore it is unbelievable that merely because Laxmichand did not get the water himself but asked another person to bring water could have afforded any reason for the appellant to abuse Laxmichand. Similarly we are unable to believe the version of the accused that Laxmichand abused him merely because he asked for some water. The versions given by the prosecution as well as the accused do not accord with human probabilities. We think that on this part of the case neither side has placed before the court the true facts. But there is no gainsaying the fact that after the appellant and Laxmichand abused each other, the appellant picked up a stick and assaulted Laxmichand as a result of which Laxmichands arm got fractured. It is clear from the evidence on record and from the circumstances of the case that the appellant was ag type. As regards the assault on Laxmichand there is clear and convincing evidence. Therefore the trial court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellant under section 325, I.P.COn this point, there is no reliable evidence. None of the witness from Mundri village supported that version. The probabilities of the case are in favour of the version given by the appellant. It is most likely that when the appellant assaulted Laxmichand, the villagers wanted to catch hold of the appellant and it is also not unlikely that in the heat of the moment they assaulted him. It must also remembered that the appellant was a stranger to the village and there is nothing surprising if the sympathies of the villagers were with thes who had sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant. In assessing the value to be attached to the evidence of the type with which we are concerned, the courts have to rely more on human probabilities than on the assertions of the witnesses. It is least likely that merely because Moti or Mahavir Prasad or others came and asked the appellant not to assault. Laxmichand, he would have taken out his knife and plunged the same on those persons. It is probable that when the appellant was encircled and assaulted he in the heat of the moment and fearing that he might be dealt with severely went on attacking those who encircled him. In our opinion, the learned trial judge was right in opining that the appellant attacked Moti, Mahavir Prasad. Bharose and Bhagwandas when they tried to catch him. We are inclined to go further and hold that the accused is likely to have sustained the injuries noticed on his person when the villagers tried to catch him and disarm him. Under those circumstances the learned trial judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused had a right ofe but that he exceeded that right. The High Court failed to take an overall view of the case. The right ofe is a very valuable right. It has a social purpose. That right should not be construed narrowly.