MAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ten persons were charged in the Court of the Sessions Judge, of Muzaffar Nagar under Secs.147 and 304, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The charge was that they, on the morning of 18 February 1932, had formed an unlawful assembly and had caused grievous injuries to Ali Ahmad, which resulted in his death. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted six of the accused, convicted four under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment each. All the four convicted persons appeal to this Court. The accused Gumani had a field in the village of Wilayet Nagar. Adjacent to his field was the field of Ali Ahmad. There was a canal between the fields, from which water was obtained for irrigation. The prosecution alleged that when Husain Ahmad was engaged in taking water from the canal Gumani came up and objected. The result was a quarrel between the two men. Relations on both sides came up to assist and a marpit took place. In that marpit Ali Ahmad unfortunately was hit on the head with a lathi and died. The first information, report was made at once by Husain Ahmad who was--the learned Judge finds--present throughout the marpit. It is as follows: Today in the morning water came from the canal in the distributary. I cleaned my drain and began to lead water to my wheat field. The accused came and stopped me from taking the water. When I forbade them from doing so, they beat me with lathis. When Ali Ahmad, my father, Amir Ahmad, my uncle, and Hasan Ahmad, my brother asked them as to why they were beating me, the accused beat them with lathis. They are lying unconscious in the field.

(2.) The persons named by Husain Ahmad were Gumani, Patram, Man Singh and Jhandu, who are the present appellants. It will be noted that only four names were mentioned in this first information report. No less than ten accused however were charged before the learned Sessions Judge. All the prosecution witnesses gave evidence that all these ten accused were present and took part in the marpit. The learned Judge has rightly found in his judgment, and for good reason, that the prosecution case had been much exaggerated and there were serious developments made in it and further there can be no doubt in this case that the implication of these six accused Shadi, Sundra, Balla, Narpat, Chhota and Baldewa was an after- thought and the result of a conspiracy to implicate as many persona as possible and to make the occurrence look more serious and also to establish a case of riot.

(3.) This is a clear finding by the learned Judge that no less than six out of ten of the persons charged had been falsely implicated. The learned Government Pleader, who appears for the Crown in this appeal does not challenge this finding. This is another of those unfortunate cases which occur in this country especially where riots are concerned. A short time ago in the Ranja riot case a Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, laid down certain rules with regard to false evidence. It was there decided that if it was proved that a witness for the prosecution had given false evidence, it was unsafe to rely upon him at all. I can see no reason why this rule of English law--based on centuries of experience-- should not be strictly applied in India. The reason for it, is obvious. The prosecution must prove its case and the accused must be given the benefit of any doubt which exists. If a witness has sworn falsely against one accused there can be no certainty that he is not also swearing falsely against another. Where there is no certainty there can be no proof, and there must be doubt. It is more important that the Courts should be a shield for the innocent than a sword for the guilty. Dr. Johnson said "unless civil institutions ensure protection to base a conviction, though false evidence mankind should have in them would be lost." The sure result of failure to observe this rule must be that many innocent persons would suffer. In a case where false evidence is discovered there may be other evidence on which to base a conviction, though false evidence must inevitably damage the whole fabric of the prosecution case, yet ho-nest or circumstantial evidence cannot be used to support or corroborate a perjured witness. Such evidence must be itself. to justify a finding of guilty