K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in S. T. No. 62/5/17 of 1980/81 and S. T. No. 9/6 of 1981, convicting the appellants under Ss. 14/148, 323 and 324 read with S. 149, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months on each count except for the offence under S. 147, I. P. C. for which no separate sentence was imposed, with a further direction that the sentence shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case : The occurrence took place on 9-1-190 at about 9. 50 p. m. at Belpahar. The injured, Jaya Krishna Naik (P. W. 11), deceased Ramesh Chandra Samantray (for short referred to a 'samantray') and most of the prosecution witnesses were employees of Belpahar Refractory Factory. P. W. 11, Samantray and the prosecution witnesses belonged to a labour union headed by one Chiranjilal which wa not recognised by the employers of the factory. The appellants belonged to the labour union headed by one Gyana Patnaik which was recognised. There was rivalry between the two unions and the occurrence was inflamed on account of collection of subscription for the labour union headed by Gyana Patnaik which was opposed by P. W. 11 and Samantray. 'b' shift of the factory wa over and 'c' shift was about to commence. The workers who had finished duty in the 'b' shift were coming out of the factory and those who had to join duty in the 'c' shift were going to the factory premises in front of which there is a road crossing named as 'golei Chhak'. P. W. 11 after finishing duty in the 'b' shift was returning home. When he arrived at the Golei Chhak, appellant Makunda came from his back side and pulled him by the collar of his shirt, as a result of which he fell down on the ground with his face upwards. Appellant Ratikanta caught hold of his neck and appellant Kanheilal pressed the neck. Appellant Makunda who was armed with a knife attempted to stab on his chest, but he caught hold of his hand, as a result of which the knife caused an injury on his left hand. Appellant Kanheilal, Ratikanta and others assaulted him by means of cycle chain, leather belt, fist blows and kicks. Appellant Makunda who was armed with a knife attempted to stab on his chest, but he caught hold of his hand, as a result of which the knife caused an injury on his left hand. Appellant Kanheilal, Ratikanta and others assaulted him by means of cycle chain, leather belt, fist blows and kicks. When the assault on P. W. 11 was going on, Samantray arrived there and challenged the assailants. Being enraged by his challenge, appellant Krishna Bahadur and others dragged him away. P. W. 11 for fear of his Life ran towards Gumadera, but he was chased by appellants Ratikanta, Bibhisan and Kanheilal who continued to assault him by means of cycle chain, leather belt and fist blows. Somehow he escaped and went to the Belpahar Outpost and made a station diary entry and further sent a report to the Brajarajnagar Police Station (Ext. 7/2 ). Samantray who was dragged away was also severely assaulted. Appellant Bibhisan dealt a Farsa blow on his left leg. He dealt a second blow which touched his forehead. Appellant Krishna Bahadur aimed a Bhujali, but Samantray caught hold of it and in the process the Bhujali hit his right plan. When the assault was going on in that manner, there was a gathering of workers and Home guards and so all the appellants left the spot. P. W. 1, Biswambar Naik took P. W. 11 to Belpahar Out-post where report was lodged which was treated as F. I. R. (Ext. 8 ). Both P. W. 11 and Samantray were hospitalised for the injuries rived by them. They were examined by the Medical Officer (P. W. 6 ). Investigation commenced during which witnesses were examined and some material objects were seized. After close thereof, two charge-sheets were submitted against the appellants for having committed offence under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with S. 149, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellants was complete denial of their complicity in the offences. They stated that on account of labour union rivalry, they were falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with S. 149, I. P. C. but acquitted them of the offences under Ss. They stated that on account of labour union rivalry, they were falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with S. 149, I. P. C. but acquitted them of the offences under Ss. 326 and 307 read with S. 149, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them as already stated. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge held as follows :- (I) Motive was not proved by the prosecution although failure thereof is not a ground to discard the prosecution case; (ii) The appellants did not attempt to commit the murder of Samantray. Therefore, the charge under S. 307 read with S. 149, I. P. C. was not established; (iii) On account of non-examination of independent witnesses and for examination of partisan witnesses who were subjected to severe cross-examination, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved; and (iv) Except accused Dillip Kumar Naik, Sarangadhar Sahu, Ranjit Kumar Barik and Mahendra Kumar Naik who were acquitted, the other accused persons, namely, the appellants, formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly assaulted P. W. 11 and Samantray. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced them as already referred to above. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 the Senior Medical Officer of B. R. L. Hospital at Belpahar, Examined P. W. 11 on 10-1-1980 and found seven injuries on different parts of his body. Only one of them was an incised injury on the back of the left forearm in the middle. The rest were contusions, abrasions and bruises. All the injuries were simple in nature and could be caused by hard and blunt weapon, leather belt and cycle chain except the incised injury which could be caused by knife. On the same day, Samantray was also examined by him and he found three incised injuries on the left forehead near the hair margin, right thumb on the palmer surface and the lateral side of the left foot below the left ankle. The last one was a gaping wound of 4" long, 1/2" wide, and 1/4" to 1/2" deep. All the injuries were simple in nature. The injuries could be caused by a Bhujali. ( 7 ) MR. The last one was a gaping wound of 4" long, 1/2" wide, and 1/4" to 1/2" deep. All the injuries were simple in nature. The injuries could be caused by a Bhujali. ( 7 ) MR. A. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was wholly discrepant in all respects, independent witnesses were not examined, the evidence of partisan and interested witnesses should have been abjured and so the parrot like version put forth by the prosecution is liable to be disbelieved. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, urged that the evidence of the injured prosecution witness No. 11 with regard to the assault cannot be disbelieved. There is no rule of law that evidence of partisan and interested witnesses should be discarded without proper scrutiny. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the occurrence was so convincing that it was not possible on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case. Therefore, the judgement cannot be displaced. ( 8 ) IT is a case of merciless assault by a number of persons upon two unfortunate victims on account of trade union rivalry and one of them, namely, Samantray subsequently fell a victim and is no more. The evidence of P. W. 11, the injured witness cannot be lightly discarded and should be given due credence. It is the settled position of law that even though the witnesses are partisan or interested, their evidence for that reason cannot be thrown over-board. But it is necessary that the residence of such witnesses should be closely scrutinized and the prosecution case should be approached with due care and caution. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinies the evidence of P. W. 11 and other eyewitnesses to the occurrence, such as, P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 11. ( 9 ) P. W. 11, the victory of assault stated that he knew the appellants On 9-1-1980 at about 9. 50 p. m. he was returning from duty in the 'b' shift from the factory. When he arrived near the Golei Chhak close to the club house, appellant Makunda came from his back side and held the collar of his shirt, as a result of which the fell down on the ground with his face upwards. Appellant Ratikanta who was also there caught hold of his neck. When he arrived near the Golei Chhak close to the club house, appellant Makunda came from his back side and held the collar of his shirt, as a result of which the fell down on the ground with his face upwards. Appellant Ratikanta who was also there caught hold of his neck. Appellant Kanheilal pressed his neck by his hands. Appellant Makunda who had a knife in his hand, raised it to stab, but the witness caught hold of his hands and in that process, the knife hit his left hand. Appellant Kanheilal started assaulting him by means of a leather belt. Appellant Ratikanta also assaulted him by means of fist blows and kicks. While he was being assaulted black and blue, Samantray arrived there and challenged the appellants. Being enraged by his challenge, he was assaulted by appellant Krishna Bahadur and some others. When the attention of the appellants was diverted to Samantray, the witness started running towards Gumadera to save himself from further assault, but he was chased and even during that process he was assaulted by appellants Ratikanta, Bibhisan and Kanheilal by means of cycle chain, leather belt and hands. When strength was ebbing out from his body, some people near about intervened and separated the appellants and so they left him and went back. As a result of the assault, he sustained inures on various parts of his body and was taken to the police station by Biswambar Naik. He made the report (Ext. 7/2) and was then sent to the hospital for examination and treatment. He was examined thoroughly, but no discrepancy or contradiction worthy of note was noticed. It is for consideration what value should be attached to the evidence of an injured witness. In AIR 1976 SC 2027 , Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that ocular version of the incident of the injured is of great vague to the prosecution. In AIR 1989 SC 1822 , State of U. P. v. Jodha Singh, it was held that the testimony of an eye-witness consistent with the version given in the F. I. R. and who had sustained injury in the occurrence cannot be rejected on the ground that he is an interested witness. In AIR 1989 SC 1822 , State of U. P. v. Jodha Singh, it was held that the testimony of an eye-witness consistent with the version given in the F. I. R. and who had sustained injury in the occurrence cannot be rejected on the ground that he is an interested witness. In 1988 (1) Crimes 994 (2), State of U. P. v. Ram Swarup, it was held by the Supreme Court that there is no rule of law to the effect that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be accepted. The fact that the witnesses are associated with faction appeased to that of the accused by itself does not render their evidence false. Partisanship by itself is no ground for discarding sworn testimony. Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. Considered in the Light of the aforesaid principles, I do not find any reason whatsoever to discard the ocular testimony of P. W. 11 who was one of the persons assaulted by the appellants and was injured. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 11 has been corroborated by four other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. As already referred to above, they are P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, and 7. P. W. 1 stated that on 9-1-1980 at about 9. 50 p. m. he was returning from the factory after performing duty in the 'b' shift. He found that near Gopabandhu park some Marpit was going on. He went near the spot and saw that the appellants very assaulting P. W. 11 by hands, cycle chain and belt. When appellant Makunda attempted to give a stab by a knife on the chest, P. W. 11 caught hold of the knife and in that process it injured his left hand. While the assault was going on, Samantray arrived at the spot and protested at the action of the appellants. On such protest being made, appellants Krishna Bahadur, Ratikanta and Bibhisan dragged him to a little distance. Appellant Bibhisan assaulted on his left leg by means of a Farsa. Appellant Krishna Bahadur attempted to give a blow by means of a Bhujali, but Samantray caught hold of it and in that process, he received a injury on his right palm. On such protest being made, appellants Krishna Bahadur, Ratikanta and Bibhisan dragged him to a little distance. Appellant Bibhisan assaulted on his left leg by means of a Farsa. Appellant Krishna Bahadur attempted to give a blow by means of a Bhujali, but Samantray caught hold of it and in that process, he received a injury on his right palm. The witness further stated that when P. W. 11 was being assaulted he ran away from the spot and was chased by the appellants unto the foot ball field beyond the railway line. None of the witnesses present dared to intervene as the appellants were aimed with weapons. The appellants stopped chasing P. W. 11 when they saw a Home Guard coming. He then took P. W. 11 to the police station by a cycle where the latter lodged report. P. W. 11 had sustained injuries. P. W. 3 stated that he was returning after performing duty in the factory in 'b' shift and saw that Marpit was going on near Gopabandhu Park. He came and saw appellants Ratikanta, Bibhisan and Kanheilal assaulting P. W. 11. Some others were also present, but he could not identify them. Appellants Ratikanta and Bibhisan were assaulting by means of hands. Appellant Kanheilal was assaulting by means of a cycle chain. At that time, Samantray came near P. W. 11 and challenged the assailants. The appellants, however, caught and dragged him to a little distance and assaulted him. Appellant Bibhisan assaulted Samantray by means of a Farsa. The others who assaulted him could not be identified by the witness. P. W. 11 started to run away from the spot. He went near Samantray and found a cut injury on his right palm, one bleeding injury on his forehead and a cut injury on his left leg. On request, he carried him by his cycle to the hospital. He was told on the way by Samantray that appellants Ratikanta, Bibhisan, Krishna Bahadur and Kanheilal assaulted him. P. W. 4 stated that on 9-1-1950 at about 9. 15 p. m. he was going to attend the duty in the factory in 'c' Shift. By the time he arrived near Gopabandhu Park, he found that the appellants had surrounded P. W. 11. Appellant Ratikanta was dragging him by the collar of the shirt from the back side. As a result, P. W. 11 fell down. 15 p. m. he was going to attend the duty in the factory in 'c' Shift. By the time he arrived near Gopabandhu Park, he found that the appellants had surrounded P. W. 11. Appellant Ratikanta was dragging him by the collar of the shirt from the back side. As a result, P. W. 11 fell down. Thereafter, appellant Ratikanta assaulted him by means of fist blows. Appellant Kanheilal assaulted him by means of a cycle chain. Appellant Bibhisan assaulted by means of a leather belt. Appellant Makunda tried to give a knife blow on the chest of P. W. 11, but he caught hold of the knife and in that process he received an injury on his left hand. P. W. 11 raised hue and cry. At that time, Samantray arrived at the spot and protested. At such protest, appellants Ratikanta, Bibhisan and Kanheilal and come others dragged him from the spot and took him to a little distance. Appellant Krishna Bahadur aimed a Bhujali blow, but Samantray caught hold of the Bhujali and in that process it hit his right palm. Appellant Bibhisan gave a Farsa blow on the left leg of Samantray. He fell down on the ground and shouted to save his life. When. the assailants turned their attention to Samantray, P. W. 11 ran away from the spot towards the railway line. P. W. 7 stated that on 9-1-1980 at about 9. 50 p. m. he came out of the factory after attending duty in the 'b' shift. When he reached near the Golei Chhak, he found appellant Ratikanta dragging P. W. 11 by holding collar of his shirt, as a result of which the latter fell down. When he tried to get up, appellant Kanheilal gave him blows by means of cycle chain. Appellant Bibhisan assaulted him by means of a leather belt. When P. W. 11 tried to prevent the knife blow aimed by appellant Makunda, the knife struck his left hand. The other appellants also assaulted him by kicks and fist blows. When he was being assaulted, Samantray arrived at the spot and challenged the assailants. At this, appellant Ratikanta and others dragged him towards the compound wall of the club house where appellant Bibhisan gave a Farsa blow on the left leg of Samantray. The other appellants also assaulted him by kicks and fist blows. When he was being assaulted, Samantray arrived at the spot and challenged the assailants. At this, appellant Ratikanta and others dragged him towards the compound wall of the club house where appellant Bibhisan gave a Farsa blow on the left leg of Samantray. When appellant Krishna Bahadur attempted to assault by means of a Bhujali, Samantray caught hold of it which struck his right palm. Appellant Bibhisan gave a second blow with the Farsa which slightly hit the forehead of Samantray. When persons gathered around, the appellants left. All these eye-witnesses to the occurrence were subjected to gruelling cross-examination and except minor discrepancies and inaccuracies which are bound to occur in human testimony, no substantial damage was done to their ocular version. The criticism of Mr. Patnaik to the evidence of these witnesses was mainly two fold. First, they were partisan witnesses and second, their parrot like version supplemented by discrepancies and inaccuracies shows that they were tutored witnesses. Neither of these grounds can be sustained, because of the principle laid down in the case of State of U. P. v. Rama Swarup, ( AIR 1988 SC 1028 ) (supra ). That apart when witnesses relate an incident which they had seen in the same way as it took place, their evidence cannot be rejected on the ground of similarity. In this connection, Mr. Patnaik made reference to AIR 1972 SC 464 , Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar, in which it was held that in a Melee where several people give blows to the victim at one and the same time, it is impossible to particulars the blows. If any witness attempts to do it, his veracity is doubtful. This principle cannot be said to be of universal application and must depend on the facts of each case. When a few well known persons assault, it may not always be difficult to say who assaulted by means of which weapon. Therefore, on this ground, it is not possible to view the evidence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence with suspicion. ( 11 ) THE occurrence took place at about 9. 50 p. m. Naturally, a question arose as to how at night the witnesses distinctly saw the occurrence and whether there was any impediment in the absence of light. Therefore, on this ground, it is not possible to view the evidence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence with suspicion. ( 11 ) THE occurrence took place at about 9. 50 p. m. Naturally, a question arose as to how at night the witnesses distinctly saw the occurrence and whether there was any impediment in the absence of light. But K. Patnaik himself explained that the occurrence took place almost in front of the factory gate which was very much lighted by electric bulbs. This being the fact, identification of the appellants could not be doubted. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with the case, I would like to observe that trade union rivalry between and amongst groups at times is taken to dangerous proportions. Trade union activists unnecessarily get agitated and in the zeal to support their own union and oppose the rivals, as well as the employers, do not hesitate to take extreme steps and indulge in violent activities not only disturbing the social order, but also endangering human lives. Disputes can be sorted out peacefully across tables saving much of tension and violence. It is high time that those who engage themselves in trade union activities ponder over these aspects and advise the followers to abjure violence at any cost, for it helps none and does not solve any labour problem. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the prosecution proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at a correct conclusion. Interference either in the conviction or in the sentence is uncalled for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .