Bishna @ Bhiswadeb Mahato vs. State of WB

• The facts of the case are that  An incident takes place in a village in the morning and that too at the harvesting time, presence of the villagers and in particular those who claim right, title, ownership as well as possession of the land in question is not unnatural. 
• An occurrence took taken place on the previous day. The witnesses did not say that they had run away from their land to some other place. They merely said that they retreated to some extent and thereafter they were chased. 
• The assault on the deceased as also other prosecution witnesses took place almost at the same place.
• The investigating officer found the dead body of Prankrishna as well as Nepal Mahato in an unconscious condition near about the same place.

Whether the testimonies of the witnesses are reliable enough for the accused to be convicted?

• The Court observed that the a right of private defence cannot be claimed when the accused are aggressors, when they go to complainant's house well prepared for a fight and provoke the complainant party resulting in a quarrel and taking undue advantage that the deceased was unarmed causes his death. 
• It cannot be inferred that there was any sudden quarrel or fight, although there might be mutual fight with weapons after the deceased was attacked. In such a situation, a plea of private defence would not be available. 
• The depositions of the witnesses clearly establish that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons went to the plot of complainant party with a common object to harvest the paddy and when asked not to do so, they were attacked and when they retreated to some extent, they chased and caused injuries to the deceased and other witnesses. 
• This clearly establishes that the said act was in furtherance of a common intention. The fact that evidence of other independent witnesses also points out the overt acts played by each one of the accused is also not in dispute. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the presence of the eye- witnesses who were independent witnesses are wholly unreliable. Therefore, accepting the testimonies of the witnesses u/s. 6 of Evidence Act, the accused are liable to be convicted for the charge of murder and grievous hurt.

• The Supreme Court concluded that the two witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence of the crime immediately after the incident took place. They found 3 victims, one lying dead, another lying unconscious and the third victim who was the mother of the deceased who was also injured. The Injured and other witnesses told them about the entire incident in detail. 
• It was held that the evidence given by these two witnesses held a corroboratory value to the evidence produced by the prosecution and also corroborated with the allegations made in the FIR and hence it was covered under the doctrine of res gestae.