MOHINDER PAL JOLLY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal by special leave was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur under Section 304 Part-I, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default to two years' further rigorous imprisonment. The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the dependents of the deceased in equal shares. The appellant filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence. The State also filed an appeal and the widow of the deceased filed a revision in the High Court for convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code instead of Section 304 Part-I. The High Court dismissed both the appeals as also the revision. The appellant only has preferred this appeal in this Court.

(2.) The appellant was running a factory at Jullunder and on account of non-availability of raw-materials the factory remained closed for a fortnight from the 14th to 28th September, 1967 resulting in lay-off of the workmen. A dispute arose between the management and the workmen in regard to the payment of wages for the period aforesaid. Ultimately a settlement was arrived at through the intervention of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Jullundur and the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing which was marked Ext. D-A in the case. Rightly or wrongly the workers, according to the prosecution case, got the impression that they were to be paid their wages for the period of lay-off. They accordingly went to the appellant on 7th October, 1967 for demanding the wages. The appellant is said to have told them that the same would be paid on the 11th October. On this date again they went to the factory and sent P. W. Mota Singh to demand wages from the appellant. He asked him to go away. Mota Singh came out and passed on the information to the workers present outside the factory premises, who, amongst others, included Sant ram, the deceased, Darshan Singh, P. W. 4 and Gurcharan Singh, P. W. 5. According to the prosecution case the workers then started raising innocuous slogans demanding their wages and did nothing else. It is said that thereupon the appellant opened the door of his office and fired a shot from his revolver towards the workers who were raising slogans. The shot hit on the forehead of Sant Ram who fell down and died instantaneously on the spot. The occurrence took place at 2.00 p.m. on the 11th October, 1967. A First Information Report was lodged at the Thana at 2.15 p. m.; on the written report of Mota Singh, P. W. 2, Shadi Lal, P. W. 13, Sub-Inspector of Police reached the place of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. and started investigation. After submission of charge-sheet and commitment the appellant was tried for having committed the offence of murder of Sant Ram punishable under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code.

(3.) The defence set up by the appellant was that the Labour Officer had given the decision contained in Ext. D-A on the 28th September, 1967 that no wages would be paid for the lay-off period but that the workmen would be treated on leave and would be paid as per leave due to each one of them. He alone with his son and driver Bansi Lal was in the office at about 1.50 p.m. on the 11th October when eight or nine labourers of his factory and fifteen or twenty labourers who are outsiders came to his factory. Some of them entered his office while others stood outside. They demanded wages not only for the period of lay-off but also for the period from 7th October onwards when they had decided not to join the work until their wages were paid. The factory gates were closed and a big crowd of labourers collected outside. They became violent. They shouted very abusive and obnoxious slogans and were saying that they would not leave the owner of the factory alive that day. They showered brick-bats at the factory premises. His office air-conditioner was broken, so was the electric globe outside the office. The brick-bats hit the office wall and damaged it and also damaged the table glass on the table inside the office. Numerous brick-bats fell both inside and outside the office. Apprehending imminent danger to his life and in exercise of the right of private defence of property and person. Bansi Lal, the appellant's driver fired the shot from the revolver and not he. The labourers had started breaking the barbed wire fixed on the boundary wall of the factory on the other side of which they were standing. Some of them including Sant Ram tried to scale the boundary wall. It was in such a situation that the bullet hit Sant Ram causing his death.