V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) MR. U. S. Pandey, IV. Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur has by his order dated 25. 11. 1978 convicted the three appellants of this appeal undert section 308 read with section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY there were four accused, in the case, namely, Manager Yadav, Lallan Sharma. Ram Abhilakh and one Ramji Ram. After considering the entire evidence on the record and after coming to the conclusion that as regards. Ramji Ram there was some dispute about identity and a little suspicion had arisen, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded his acquittal giving him benefit of doubt. The case of the remaining three accused was however found to be ironclad and the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) IT is said that all the accused were employees of the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, Renukoot (hereinafter to be mentioned as THindalco ). They were members of Pargatisheel Mazdul Sabha, a trade union body working under the Communist Party of India. The victim of this assault Mangal Singh was also an employee of the Hindalco and it is said that he did not believe in the ideology of the accused persons and did not subscribe to their views. The accused persons and their union wanted to organise a tool down strike in the Hindalco but Mangal Singh and some of his associates were not ready for the same and were opposing it. He had been previously warned not to go on duty but he did not pay any heed to this warning. This occurrence took place in the night between 13/14th of September, 1974 during the night shift which starts at 11 p. m. and continues upto 7 A. M. on the next morning. The victim Man gal Singh was on duty in the pot room on the E line. The prosecution witnesses Adya Prasad and Ajab Narain were also working on the same line. Sometime before 2. 30 A. M. the four accused of this case along with five or six others came to Mangal Singh and tried to argue with him and insists upon him to strike work, He did not agree. The prosecution witnesses Adya Prasad and Ajab Narain were also working on the same line. Sometime before 2. 30 A. M. the four accused of this case along with five or six others came to Mangal Singh and tried to argue with him and insists upon him to strike work, He did not agree. After a few minutes the four accused of this case again approached him with the same request and Mangal Singh again showed his inability to agree to their request. On this at about 2. 30 A M. all the four accused persons came to the pot room where Mangal Singh was working. Manager Yadav and Lallan Sharma were armed with enode jacks while Ramji Ram and Ram Abhilakh were armed with iron rods. An enode jack is in the shape of a flat iron bar about 31 in length and three inches in breadth with an iron hook attached to it at one end. It has blunt edges and can be used as a blunt weapon. One such instrument was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for his perusal and he has mentioned about it in his judgment. The four accused persons started assaulting Mangal Singh with their weapons. The whole of the pot room was flood with mercury and tube-lights. Mangal Singh fell down and still the beating continued. He became unconscious and sustained large number of injuries. Adya Prasad and Ajab Narain who were working nearby saw the incident and rushed up. The accused persons however, after completing the assault, left the place. Adya Prasad went to the Supervisors office where the General Foreman Sri SC. Tandon met him. He was informed about the incident. Then Mr. Tandoo came to the spot and saw Mangal Singh lying injured there. Arrangement of the Hindalco jeep was made and the injured was taken to the Hindalco Hospital where first aid was given. But since it was a medico legal case it was advised that he should be taken to the Government Hospital of Turra. The injured was then taken to Turra Hospital where his injuries were examined. He was again directed to be taken to Hindalco Hospital for treatment and X-ray etc. because facilities were not available at Turra Hospital and better facilities were available at the Hospital at Hindalco. The doctor asked Sri Adya Prasad whether he had lodged a report about the matter. He was again directed to be taken to Hindalco Hospital for treatment and X-ray etc. because facilities were not available at Turra Hospital and better facilities were available at the Hospital at Hindalco. The doctor asked Sri Adya Prasad whether he had lodged a report about the matter. This happened at about 11 A M. Then Adya Prasad thought that the lodging of the report should be done. He then proceeded to Police Station Pipari and scribed the report.-Ex. ka t and handed it over to the police. Former lodging of the report was made at 12. 10 P. M. Investigation was then made and charge sheet was submitted. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the accused has argued vehemently on two points. Firstly, it is contended that there is delay in lodging the first information report and hence all inferences possible should be drawn against the prosecution. He has built up an argument to the affect that there are trade union rivalries in every big concern and so there were in the Hindalco as well and since a group of people of whom Manager Yadav appears to be one of the ring leaders, was agitating for a tool down strike in the factory and since another group of which the victim is one of the members, was opposing it, hence it was a case of rivalry between two unions and the injured being a person who was against strike, was a man of management and hence the first information report was made after deliberation and considerations at the instance of management of the Hindalco to implicate unwanted persons whom the Management considered to be troublesome and wanted to do away with. Now this argument attractive as it appears (I am repeating the words of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not yet a sound argument. If the first information report had been made after deliberations, it would not have been found having the very glaring defect of the wrong mention of the batch number of one of the culprits. This wrong batch number has been responsible for the acquittal of one of the culprits from this case. If the management had any hand in the lodging of the report and of the prosecution of the case, this sort of glaring mistake would not have crept in. This wrong batch number has been responsible for the acquittal of one of the culprits from this case. If the management had any hand in the lodging of the report and of the prosecution of the case, this sort of glaring mistake would not have crept in. The very fact that an uncencerned person who had sympathy with the injured and who had seen the occurrence, namely, Adya Prasad, lodged the report shows that there was no hand of the management in its lodging. This man states that there were two persons of the name of Ramji Ram. They had two different batch numbers. The batch number of Ramji Ram which was mentioned in the first information report was p. 15-493. The actual Ramji Ram who took part in the occurrence however is said to be a person who had a batch number P. 15. 4r8. This fact came out soon after the lodging of the first information report and the evidence shows that this information was communicated to the Investigating Officer also. It was under these circumstances that Ramji Ram having batch number p. 15488 was made to standt his trial. It is a different matter that this mistake in mentioning wrong batch number and hence wrong identity of the culprit, prevailed upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting benefit of doubt to Ramji Ram. But it is positively true that Ramji Ram having batch No. P-15-488 would have been clearly mentioned in the first information report if deliberation and considerations had been manoeuverd by the management of the Hindalco because they were supposed to know the correct batch number of the man. This mistake shows that the first information report is not a manoeuvred document. The explanation of delay is very satisfactory. Although Mr. Tandon representing the management and working as a Supervisor-cum-General Foreman was apprised of the, occurrence immediately after it had taken place and although he went with the injured to the hospital, he did not lodge the report in this case. It was left to Adya Prasad to lodge the report. He would not have also done so if he had not been told by the doctor that a report was essential because it was a medico legal case. It was left to Adya Prasad to lodge the report. He would not have also done so if he had not been told by the doctor that a report was essential because it was a medico legal case. This is precisely why inspite of the fact that the occurrence took place at 2-30 A. M. and the injuries had already been examined at 3-30 A. M. vide Ext. Ka 2, the report was lodged quite late at 12 noon. Belay in the lodging of the report therefore has no effect upon the authenticity of the prosecution evidence and the version given by the witnesses. ( 5 ) THE second argument advanced is that one man Ramji Ram was found to have been falsely implicated and hence the whole case becomes doubtful. I do not agree. It is not a case in which there is any finding to the effect that false implication bas taken place. Ramji Ram has been given benefit of doubt on the basis of some suspicion in matter of identity. Undoubredly somebody of the name of Ramji Ram bad taken part in the marpit but whether Ramji Ram who was understand trial was the same person in view of the defect in the mentioning of the batch number in the first information report, was the point which carried weight with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in giving him the benefit of doubt. This with, therefore, have no effect upon the case of the other accused persons nor upon the entire evidence that has been adduced in the case. ( 6 ) SO far as the prosecution evidence is concerned the witnesses are all independent and reliable. Their presence on the spot cannot be doubted or disputed. The presence of the accused persons inside the Hindalco also cannot be a matter of doubt. There is a document on record (Paper No. Kha 8) which shows that in connection with some occurrence dated 12-9-74 i. e. one day earlier, the accused Manager Yadav had been placed under suspension by the management and this suspension order was served on him at 10. 50 P. M. On 13-9-74 It is clear that this man had entered the premises of the factory inspite of this suspension order. 50 P. M. On 13-9-74 It is clear that this man had entered the premises of the factory inspite of this suspension order. This is also natural because the strike that they wanted to take place was a tool down strike and not of withdrawal from attendance in the factory. ( 7 ) MANGAL Singh received a very large number of injuries on his person. They have been detailed under 12 counts, vide injury report Ex. ka 2. They were on right arm and hand in the nature of swelling abrasions and cut lacerated wounds. They were on his left forearm in the nature of swelling and abrasions. They are on his right leg and left thigh and left leg in the nature of cut lacerated wounds. X-ray report Ext. ka 3 shows that there was fracture of the shaft of redius on the left side in the middle with displacement accompanied by a communicated fracture of shaft of ulna on left side. There was fracture of the styloid process of the right ulna bone. There were oblique fractures of the 5th and 4th Meta-carpal bones and there was communicated fracture of the shaft of tibia bone in the lower part and it had caused deformity also. The learned counsel has not pressed the point that the occurrence took place at some other place. He had rightly conceded the fact that the occurrence took place in the pot room. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the eye-witnesses because it is not a case of sudden marpit but it was a determined assault by four persons variously armed with blunt iron weapons whose identity was clearly established and of whom the present three appellants were there. I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record. I am in agreement with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he presence of the accused persons was proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the conviction has got to be maintained. There can be no escape from this position. ( 8 ) THE next argument, which was however the first to be advanced at the time of arguments, was that the matter has become ten years old. Therefore, the conviction has got to be maintained. There can be no escape from this position. ( 8 ) THE next argument, which was however the first to be advanced at the time of arguments, was that the matter has become ten years old. The occurrence took place in 1974 and the decision of the High Court is being given in the year 1984 and within this period of ten years frayed tempers have cooled down and it will be very harsh if the appellants are still punished with terms of rigorous imprisonment. I am afraid in some cases like the present one this consideration cannot weigh. It is a case in which by a group of persons merely because the victim was not following their line of action and was exhibiting an independent course of action he was mercilessly beaten with iron rods jacks even after be had fallen down. Very severe injuries were caused to him. A number of his bones have broken. No mercy was shown to him by the appellants. He was an innocent victim whose only guilt was that he had not subscribed to the political views of the accused appellants and wanted to work honestly on his job. In this back ground of the circumstances the delayt in completion of the trial and in the hearing of the appeal in the High Court should not be helpful to the accused appellants at all. They have been very highhanded and they have been convicted under section 30m read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The sentences awarded to them i. e. of three years R. I. cannot be said to be harsh under the circumstances. I do not think that there should be any interference with the sentences by this Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender and he taken into custody to serve out their sentences. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand cancelled. .