JAWANJI THANAJI Vs. (THE) STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Penal Code, 1860 S. 34 Incident was a soft of fight free for all. Both the parties on hearing abuses went to the place with weapons which they immediately could get It was a fight free for all In such a situation case of private defence ruled out Common intention cannot be attributed S. 34 IPC cannot come to the aid of the prosecution.

(2.) At the place of incident sticks and dharias were freely used. On hearing the abuses both sides went to the place of the incident with whatever arms they could immediately get. Whatever was available at the houses was picked up and they went at that place. It was a sort of fight free for all. In such a situation the case of private defence is ruled out. The real difficulty that arises in the way of the prosecution is that when it was a fight which was free for all one cannot attribute the common intention and one cannot take the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 S. 3 Appreciation of evidence Appreciation of evidence of untruthful witness requires greater caution and Judge should be slow in acting upon it Evidence of a witness uttering falsehood is not required to be rejected outright Truth is to be separated and acted upon if it is possible to separate truth from falsehood If it is not possible to do so and if whole theory appears to be false and if there is improvement, no judge can act upon that evidence of such a witness.