JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - By this judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal No. 21-SB of 1995 (Satpal and 6 others v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Appeal No. 76-SB of 1995 (Vikram Prasad and 4 others v. State of Haryana) as both these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 19/20.12.1994 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants in both the appeals is as under : Vikram, Pritam Gajinder, Satpal & Jagdish U/s 367/149 RI for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months. U/s 325/149 RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months. Satpal, Sita Ram, Chandrika Parshad, Rama Nand, Ram Komal, Surinder Mishra and Sobhi Parshad. U/s 452/149 RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. U/s 325/149 RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months. U/s 427/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year U/s 323/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year U/s 148/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year 2. However, all the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. It is worth mentioning here that in all 20 persons were booked in the present case but eight of them viz. Chander Bhushan, Inderasan, Jalband alias Jarman Parshad, Ram Preet, Bhola Singh, Satdev Giori, Darshan Parshad and Babu have earned acquittal. No appeal has been preferred by the State against their acquittal. 4. In Criminal Appeal No. 76-SB of 1995, Pritam Singh appellant has died during pendency of the appeal, as informed by learned counsel for the appellants and not disputed by the learned State counsel. As such appeal qua Pritam Singh stands abated. 5. The present case was registered on the statement of one Shiv Kumar (PW-4), the complainant, recorded by Inspector Nand Kishore (PW-14), which runs thus : 6. As such appeal qua Pritam Singh stands abated. 5. The present case was registered on the statement of one Shiv Kumar (PW-4), the complainant, recorded by Inspector Nand Kishore (PW-14), which runs thus : 6. The complainant is employed in Jamna Auto Factory Yamuna Nagar since 1957; that on 23.11.1989 at 7.30 A.M. as usual he was present inside the factory gate; that on hearing the noise of several persons outside the gate, he came to the gate and found the workers of the factory, who were on strike for the last 20/25 days, present at the gate in the form of a mob of 200/250 persons, including workers from the other factory also; that they were armed with lathis, sarias and brick-bats and were attempting to enter into the factory; that Vikram, Pritam, Gajinder, Satpal and Jagdish took away Kartar Singh Security Guard with intent to kill him; that Rama Nand, Rama Shankar etc., the other remaining accused entered the factory and started hurling brick-bats at the factory premises and they also damaged the cement sheets; that they caused injuries to Himmat Singh, Chanan Singh, Jarnail Singh, Puran Singh, Hardyal Singh and Sita Ram; that meanwhile the workers, who were on duty inside the factory, reached the spot and on seeing them the accused fled away saying that they would kill them. 7. Kartar Singh was found lying in a nearby park in an unconscious condition. He was removed to the Civil Hospital by Shiv Kumar and others. Kartar Singh and other injured persons were got medico-legally examined. 8. After completion of investigation, all the 20 accused were sent up to face trial. They were charged under Sections 452/325.323/427/364/148/492 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Gajinder, Pritam, Satpal, Jagdish and Vikram Parshad were charged under Section 364 Indian Penal Code. 9. As already indicated above, the learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence convicted 12 persons in all and acquitted 8 of them. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the aforesaid 12 appellants have come up in these two appeals. 10. I have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, learned A.A.G., Haryana. With their assistance I have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 11. Mr. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the aforesaid 12 appellants have come up in these two appeals. 10. I have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, learned A.A.G., Haryana. With their assistance I have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 11. Mr. Chaudhary has mainly joined the issue for the conviction recorded under Section 367/149 Indian Penal Code against Vikram, Gajinder, Satpal and Jagdish contending that this charge is not at all proved may be that Kartar Singh, Security Guard (PW-5), who had received injuries in the occurrence, was found lying in a park, which is just adjacent to the factory. The learned counsel contends that it cannot be said that he was kidnapped in order to put him in danger of being subjected to grevious hurt etc. The learned counsel further submits that as per case of the prosecution, a mob of 200/250 persons had entered the factory premises, as one of the unions was on strike for the last 20/25 days and that in a mob attack no specific role can be attributed to any body and it appears that the complainant side in order to falsely implicate the present appellants have come up with a graver offence, projecting that Kartar Singh was kidnapped by Vikram Singh etc. appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 76-SB of 1995. The learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid submissions contends that the offence under Section 367 Indian Penal Code is not proved to the hilt and as such the appellants namely Vikram, Gajinder, Satpal and Jagdish deserve acquittal. 12. Attacking the prosecution story qua other charges, the learned counsel half-heartedly argues that even the other offences are not made out in the present set of circumstances in which even Chandrika Parshad, Sita Ram, Rama Nand and Ram Komal have also received many injuries in this occurrence and that besides them, one Jarman Parshad from the side of the accused (since acquitted) has also received injuries in this occurrence. Drawing my attention to the medico-legal reports of all these five injured, the learned counsel submits that almost same number of persons have received injuries on both the sides and that too in a mob attack as such all the appellants deserve acquittal. 13. Drawing my attention to the medico-legal reports of all these five injured, the learned counsel submits that almost same number of persons have received injuries on both the sides and that too in a mob attack as such all the appellants deserve acquittal. 13. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants prays for reduction in sentence, submitting that the appellants, who belong to the labour class, have already faced the agony of protracted trial for the last about 15 years; that some of the appellants have also received many injuries in this occurrence, including grievous injuries and that they have already undergone some part of their substantive sentence during trial and after conviction as well. The said period undergone by each of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 21-SB of 1995, as intimated by the learned counsel for the appellants and not disputed by the learned State counsel is as follows :- Name of the Appellant During trial After conviction Satpal 2 months 10 days 1 month 10 days Sita Ram 2 months 10 days 1 month 10 days Chandrika Parshad 2 months 10 days 1 month 10 days Rama Nand 2 months 10 days 1 month 10 days Ram Komal J4 months 1 month 10 days Surinder Mishra 2 months 10 days 1 month 10 days Sobhi Parshad 4 months 1 month 10 days 14. Similarly in Criminal Appeal No. 76-SB of 1005, the aforesaid period undergone by each of the appellants is as under : Name of the Appellant During trial After conviction Vikram 7 months 11 days Around 2 months Gajinder 3 months 2 months Satpal 3 months 2 months Jagdish 7 months 2 months 15. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that all the appellants deserve a sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence. 16. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the learned State counsel submits that all the appellants in furtherance of their common object viz. to cause injuries to the workers of the factory and to damage the property of the owner and after entering into the factory premises injured several persons from the side of the complainant in which Kartar Singh and Chanan Singh have received grievous injuries. to cause injuries to the workers of the factory and to damage the property of the owner and after entering into the factory premises injured several persons from the side of the complainant in which Kartar Singh and Chanan Singh have received grievous injuries. He then contends that Vikram, Pritam, Gajinder, Satpal, Jagdish took a daring step of kidnapping Kartar Singh, Security Guard and gave him beatings and thereafter left him unconscious in the park. The learned State counsel further submits that the very fact that appellants had entered the premises and caused injuries to several persons speaks volumes of their criminal minds and as such all the charges are established against them beyond any doubt. 17. With regard to quantum of sentence, the learned counsel submits that the appellants do not deserve any leniency in this case and as such their conviction as recorded by the learned grial Court and the sentence imposed upon them are liable to be maintained. 18. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and perusing the records minutely, I am of the view that the case of the prosecution is proved against all the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. 19. The learned counsel has mainly attacked the prosecution case qua conviction recorded under Sections 367/149 Indian Penal Code. In this regard, statement of Kartar Singh (PW-5) recorded during trial assumes importance. He has categorically stated that on 27.11.1989 at about 7. 30 A.M., he was present in the factory premises as guard; that there was a strike of workers in the factory and many workers were staging Dharna in front of the gate of the factory; that about 200/250 persons in the shape of a mob armed with lathis, iron rods and brick-bats tried to enter the gate of the factory and when they were stopped by him, the mob started beating him and on his raising alarm, accused Satpal, Pritam, Jagdish, Gajinder and Vikram lifted him to the park and there also gave him beatings. Nothing material could be extracted out of the cross-examination of this witness by the learned defence counsel. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. It cannot be a case of mistaken identity as Vikram and others were the workers of the factory itself. Nothing material could be extracted out of the cross-examination of this witness by the learned defence counsel. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. It cannot be a case of mistaken identity as Vikram and others were the workers of the factory itself. From the statement of Kartar Singh PW, the ingredients of Section 367 Criminal Procedure Code are clearly made out and the charge under Sections 367/149 Indian Penal Code is proved against Vikram, Gajinder, Pritam, Satpal and Jagdish appellants. Consequently their conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld. 20. So far as the other charges are concerned, even those also stand proved from the evidence on the file. No doubt, the present appellants were workers of the factory, but as alleged, they were staging a Dharna outside the factory and on 23.11.1989 the workers of various factories in the form of a strong mob of 250/300 persons had come towards the gate of the factory and entered the gate, caused injuries to different persons. I have carefully perused the statements of Shiv Kumar (PW-4), the first informant, Himmant Singh (PW-6), Mohan Singh (PW-7), Chanan Singh (PW-8), Jarnail Singh (PW-9), Puran Chand (PW-10) and Surjan Lal (PW-11), who have reiterated the prosecution story and their deposition is consistent on all the material aspects. At the same time, I do not find any infirmity in the investigation conducted in this case. 21. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of all the appellants as recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby upheld. 22. However, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to quantum of sentence. Admittedly, four persons from the appellants side namely Sita Ram, Chandrika, Ram Komal and Rama Nand have received many injuries in this occurrence. Besides this, Jerman Parshad (since acquired) had also received injuries. I have perused the medico-legal reports of all the aforesaid persons. On the other hand, from the complainant side besides other injuries, Kartar Singh and Chanan have received grievous injuries attracting Section 325 Indian Penal Code. As mentioned above, all the appellants have already undergone some part of their substantive sentence. I have perused the medico-legal reports of all the aforesaid persons. On the other hand, from the complainant side besides other injuries, Kartar Singh and Chanan have received grievous injuries attracting Section 325 Indian Penal Code. As mentioned above, all the appellants have already undergone some part of their substantive sentence. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that the present occurrence had ensued between two groups of workers of the factory and that too on the spur of moment when at 7.30 A.M. about 250/300 workers in the shape of a mob collected there. The reaction of the mob is absolutely different, which has to be appreciated in a different manner. Some damage has also been caused to the factory by breaking the cement sheets etc. by the mob. In the prosecution evidence, the role of causing damage to the factory has also been attributed to the present appellants. 23. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that some of the appellants have also received injuries in this occurrence, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to them by the trial Court is reduced to the period undergone by each of the appellant individually. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine under Sections 367/149 Indian Penal Code as imposed by the trial Court on Vikram, Gajinder, Satpal and Jagdish in Criminal Appeal No. 21-SB of 1995 is increased from Rs. 200/- each to Rs. 2,000/- each. To make it more clear, the total amount of Rs. 30,000/- is now termed as fine to be recovered from total 11 persons. The appellants shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine after deducting the fine, if any already deposited by them. Let it be deposited within three months from today. In default of payment fine, the defaulting appellant shall undergo the entire remaining period of his substantive sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. In the event of deposit of the aforesaid amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each would be paid to Kartar Singh (PW-5) and Chanan Singh (PW-8), the injured persons. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be disbursed to the owner of the factory. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present two appeals viz. 10,000/- each would be paid to Kartar Singh (PW-5) and Chanan Singh (PW-8), the injured persons. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be disbursed to the owner of the factory. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present two appeals viz. Criminal Appeal No. 21-SB of 1995 Criminal Appeal No. 76-SB of 1995 stand dismissed. Appeals dismissed.