PRAYAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.2.1996 and 12.9.1996 respectively, passed by Shri Bhagat Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1993, convicting the appellants under Sec.325/34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. imprisonment for four years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is as follows : On 4.7.1990 at 4 p.m., a written report was lodged by one Mr. S.K. Dalmia, (PW 1 -the Managing Director, Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd., P.O., Rehla, Garhwa Road, Palamau), alleging that on receiving telephonic message from Shri S.K. Jhajharia, (P.W.2 -the Chief Electrical Engineer of the factory), to the effect that the workers of the Plant have resorted to tool -down strike, he reached at H.C. 1. plant at 6.15 A.M. P.W. 2 was there, Prayag Singh (appellant No. 1, a worker of this plant), was standing outside. PW 1, enquired from him as to why he was not working, to which he replied in a harsh and insubordinate way. PW 1 proceeded towards Chlorine Plant and towards his car. On this, appellant No. 1 manhandled him. Simultaneously, Ram Pravesh Ram (appellant No. 2 -andther workman), came with a G.I. Pipe and shouted "maro sale ko jan se". P.W. -2 went to call the security staffs. PW 1 proceeded further and when he reached near the Chlorine Tanks, all the appellants began to assault him with G.I. Pipes. He fell down on the ground and became semi unconscious. With the help of other staffs, he was brought to his car and then to the bachelor hostel. P.W. -2 and others have seen the occurrence, which occurred between 6.15 A.M. to 6.30 A.M. Ultimately, charges were framed against the appellants under Sec.307/34, to which they pleaded not guilty.

(3.) MR . T.N. Jha, appearing for the appellants, submitted that; the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to their active involvement in unrecognized union; that no such occurrence had taken place; that taking advantage of the injuries suffered by him in an accident, PW 1 has lodged this false case; that the company 'sdoctor, who gave first aid, the other eye witnesses named in the FIR and the Investigating Officer were not examined; that P.W. -4 (Government doctor) examined PW 1 at 11 A.M., but FIR was lodged at 1 P.M.; that there are contradictions about the tool -down strike; that there is nothing to show that the doctor -PW 4 was called by the police; that the blood stained cloths were not seized; that no blood was found at the place of occurrence; that P.W. -4, the doctor did not prepare any injury report on 4.7.1990; that the prosecution developed it 'scase during trial.