Skip to content


Kashiram Kanaiyaram Vs. Lakhmichand Gangaram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 156 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1958MP407
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 5 and 118; Constitution of India - Article 15
AppellantKashiram Kanaiyaram
RespondentLakhmichand Gangaram and anr.
Advocates:Sitaram Sharma, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - i disapprove of the line of argument which the learned counsel has thought fit to adopt. he wants to condemn the witnesses on communal grounds and wants me to hold that the witnesses of the plaintiff, who is vaishya, should not be believed because they too belong to the same community......the conclusion that the defendant owed to the plaintiff the price of gram he had purchased.2. the learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial court should not have believed the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses because they belonged to the same community as the plaintiff. i disapprove of the line of argument which the learned counsel has thought fit to adopt. he wants to condemn the witnesses on communal grounds and wants me to hold that the witnesses of the plaintiff, who is vaishya, should not be believed because they too belong to the same community. the law does not recognise the impeachment of a witness on such grounds, and the argument is against the spirit of the constitution of india.3. the trial court having weighed the evidence has come to a conclusion and i.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.H. Khan, J.

1. This revision arises out of a small cause suit. The trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the defendant owed to the plaintiff the price of Gram he had purchased.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the trial Court should not have believed the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses because they belonged to the same community as the plaintiff. I disapprove of the line of argument which the learned Counsel has thought fit to adopt. He wants to condemn the witnesses on communal grounds and wants me to hold that the witnesses of the plaintiff, who is Vaishya, should not be believed because they too belong to the same community. The law does not recognise the impeachment of a witness on such grounds, and the argument is against the spirit of the Constitution of India.

3. The trial Court having weighed the evidence has come to a conclusion and I do not think it proper case to interfere with it in revision.

4. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //