https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189586 Concurrent eye-witness testimony showing that Dalits were prevented from taking water from a public borewell because of untouchability was treated as proof of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The text emphasises that revisional interference is unwarranted where trial and appellate courts have concurrently accepted credible evidence, and minor discrepancies in wording or sequence do not justify disbelieving the prosecution on a material fact. The offence is also placed in the constitutional setting of Article 17, requiring the Act to be construed as social legislation that protects equality, dignity, fraternity, and access to public amenities. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189586 Concurrent eye-witness testimony showing that Dalits were prevented from taking water from a public borewell because of untouchability was treated as proof of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The text emphasises that revisional interference is unwarranted where trial and appellate courts have concurrently accepted credible evidence, and minor discrepancies in wording or sequence do not justify disbelieving the prosecution on a material fact. The offence is also placed in the constitutional setting of Article 17, requiring the Act to be construed as social legislation that protects equality, dignity, fraternity, and access to public amenities. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189586