Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 517 (HP)

Rakesh Singha v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-09-07

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 114, 427, 307, 302, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith ten others. The other co-accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, whereas, the appellants, to be referred as ‘the accused’ hereinafter, convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 333, 120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Rakesh Singha was convicted under Section 147, 148, 353, 332, 333 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment under each of the Sections as hereunder:- Sl. No. Name of accused Offence the Under Section Sentence 1. Hari Om Sharma 147, 148, 353, 120B I.P.C. under S.332 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for a (since deceased) period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to further undergo Simple imprisonment for one month. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs..2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Kishan Singh 147, 148, 353, 120B I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo Simple U/S 332 IPC. U/S 333 IPC. imprisonment for one month. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Bhagat Ram Kaushal 147, 148, 353, 120B I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo Simple imprisonment for one month. U/S 332 IPC. U/S 333 IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo Simple imprisonment for one month. U/S 332 IPC. U/S 333 IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Rakesh Singha 147, 148, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay 353, 120B I.P.C. fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo Simple U/S 332 IPC. U/S 333 IPC. Imprisonment for one month. Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The accused aforesaid felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence directed this appeal seeking their acquittal on the grounds of material contradictions and the case not having been proved against them by the prosecution in accordance with law. Background Facts: 3. “Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Power Project” is a joint venture Company of Government of India and the State Government. It had to construct 1500 Megawatt power project on the run of the river Satlej. The water of the said river was taken from the place known as Nathpa Jhakri through 27 kilometers underground head-race tunnel. The construction-work of 11 kilometers portion head race tunnel was awarded in a Global tender to the Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture. They had engaged 500 labourers approximately, including the Engineers. The said Company was having its work sites at Jhakri, Manglahad, Daj Kotla. In the year 1998 about 90% work was completed by the said Venture, as such they hived off their work-force, but faced strong resistance from their workmen, who were the members of the ‘Centre of Indian Trade Union’ (CITU). Accused Rakesh Singha and Hari Om Sharma though were not the workers of the Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, but have been the active workers of the CITU, whereas the other accused were the workers of the Company. 4. Accused Rakesh Singha and Hari Om Sharma though were not the workers of the Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, but have been the active workers of the CITU, whereas the other accused were the workers of the Company. 4. The CITU workers were under the leadership of accused Rakesh Singha being its President. The workforce of the aforesaid Company was on strike in the month of February, 1999. The leaders and the office-bearers of CITU allegedly instigating the workers not to resume the work whereas, the loyalists of the said Company were deterred to resume the work by them. The local administration of the Company with the help of the police had also tried to resume the execution of the remaining work allotted to the said Company, but it did not yield any result. Rather, the workmen who were on strike had been assaulting even the security personnel of the Company, who insisted upon their employers to supply arms to them or depute additional armed security to protect themselves as well as the property of the Company. It was against this background that the management of the Joint Venture requisitioned the services of “Loyal Security Forces, Bombay” to provide security cover to its workmen who were interested to continue with the work. Prosecution case: 5. As per evidence on record, precisely the prosecution case is that on 20.6.1999 about 40 persons of the ‘Loyal Security Force, Bombay’ had arrived at Rampur. Out of them, PW42 Tulsi Dass, PW43 Ram Saran Singh, PW44 Arun Kumar Tiwari, PW45 Amar Singh and PW46 Santosh Kumar, were its members who were having the licensed fire-arms with them besides others. They stayed at Rampur in Satlej Guest House for about 4/5 days. (i) On 25.6.1999 in the afternoon, they started from Rampur and reached camp site Power Project Manglahad, at about 4.45 pm, alongwith PW1 SI/SHO Chandermani, Police Station, Jhakri. On the way PW1 Chandermani on the oral orders of the superiors took the security officials to the camp site alongwith PW2 Constable Bahadur Singh, Constable Parkash Chand, PW9 HC Dheeraj Sen, Constable Panna Lal and Constable Lekh Raj. They noticed that some of the police officials who were already deployed at the project site were playing cricket with the workmen. He directed them to wear their uniform. Thereafter they proceeded to Manglahad barrier, but the workers restrained them from proceeding further. They noticed that some of the police officials who were already deployed at the project site were playing cricket with the workmen. He directed them to wear their uniform. Thereafter they proceeded to Manglahad barrier, but the workers restrained them from proceeding further. All security personnel had alighted from their vehicle on seeing them, the workers of the Company started raising slogans. SI/SHO aforesaid tried to pacify them and persuaded not to agitate the employees of the Company and to settle down the dispute amicably, but the workers started raising whistles and they were joined mob of them. Again PW1 aforesaid also persuaded them not to become violent. In the meantime, a vehicle came there and one Rajinder Kaushal (not arrayed as accused) and accused Hari Om (deceased) alighted at some distance. Rajinder Kaushal in his speech told the workers that they had tolerated the affairs of the Company since long and told them to continue their stir. Thereafter Rajinder Kaushal aforesaid picked up a stone. On this all the workers also picked up the stones and started throwing them on the police officials. The police as well as the ‘Loyal Security Guards’ took shelter behind the vehicle and the workers chased the security personnel. (ii) SI Chandermani (PW1) approached wireless station and informed higher authorities. In the meantime, 4-6 workers entered into the room, took away PW3 Deepak Surinder Kumar from the room and he was threatened by the workers with dire consequences, whereas SI Chandermani was also warned not to come out from the room lest he would be killed. Thus he remained struck up inside. The workers damaged the window panes and pelted stones which continued for about 10-15 minutes. In the meantime, he heard a gun-shot. It was thereafter some workers entered the room with the sticks in their hands and dragged him out on the road. His belt, official stars and the cap were snatched. He was given beatings which resulted injuries on various parts of his body. One labourer had died on receiving the gun shot injury and one person of Loyal Security Force sustained injury on his head. Later he was found dead in the Nalah. (iii) PW34 Inspector CID Dhian Chand, in the year 1999, was posted at Jeori. He was given beatings which resulted injuries on various parts of his body. One labourer had died on receiving the gun shot injury and one person of Loyal Security Force sustained injury on his head. Later he was found dead in the Nalah. (iii) PW34 Inspector CID Dhian Chand, in the year 1999, was posted at Jeori. According to him, on 17.6.1999 accused Rakesh Singha had conducted the meeting in CITU office at Kotla wherein Bihari Lal and Hari Om etc. were also present. The said meeting was attended by about 26 employees of the Company. Rakesh Singha allegedly delivered the speech to them that the new security personnel of the Company would also be sent back like earlier one and told them to be ready for the sacrifice and if any worker sustained damage he would be compensated. He also stated that on 22.6.1999, again a meeting was addressed by Rakesh Singha accused and while addressing the workers he informed that some new security personnel had arrived, they be also sent back. The workers who would participate in the agitation would be deemed to be real Comrades. PW34 Dhian Singh accordingly prepared a report and sent it to the higher authorities. (iv) The prosecution alleged that it was Rakesh Singha accused who had instigated the CITU workers and hatched conspiracy by insisting upon the workers to reiterate the security persons of the Company who would arrive at the work place, consequent thereupon, the workmen on seeing the security persons under protection of the police got infuriated, formed an unlawful assembly, started brick-batting on the police and also the security personnel which culminated into an ugly incident causing loss of property leaving labourer Dev Dutt Bhatt dead who sustained the pellet gunshot injury, as opined by DW2 Dr. V.K. Mishra and Security Guard also died because of the head-injury. PW24 Dr. Piyush Kapila had conducted the postmortem on the dead-body of Security Guard Virender Mishra and the postmortem report is Ext.PW24/A. It is also opined by him that although the dead body was recovered from the water pool having 12-15 feet water column, as per the version of the police, but in all probabilities the deceased suffered head injury prior to his being thrown into the water. Time between the injury and death was around 15 minutes and between death and postmortem was about 96 hours. Time between the injury and death was around 15 minutes and between death and postmortem was about 96 hours. (v) The injured persons were also medically examined and the present FIR was lodged by SI Chandermani and the workers had also lodged cross FIR for the offence of murder of the workers. Both sides sustained injuries, besides deceased workman Dev Dutt Bhatt, who died because of gunshot injury and Security Guard Virender Mishra. 6. Police after the completion of the investigation in both the cases filed the Challans against 14 persons including the accused-appellants in the present case. PW25 Shiv Pal Singh Raghuvanshi, PW42 Tulsi Dass, PW43 Ram Saran Singh, PW44 Arun Kumar Tiwari, PW45 Amar Singh and PW46 Santosh Kumar and few others were the accused in the cross FIR. Both these Challans were tried separately and independently. In the other Challan on the FIR of workmen the accused were acquitted. However, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to try both the Challans together simultaneously to find out who were the aggressors. But, in the present challan put up against the accused persons, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid and acquitted others, hence the present appeal. 7. Shri Jagdish Vats, learned Advocate, duly assisted by S/Shri Ashwani Pathak and Surinder Verma, Advocates, vehemently argued that accused Rakesh Singha, even as per case of the prosecution, was not present on the spot on the day of the alleged occurrence, thus PW2 Constable Bahadur Singh has wrongly stated in his cross-examination that he was present on the spot. It is also argued that there were hundreds of workers on the spot. To frighten the workmen of the Company they resisted to press into services of the armed security guards in collusion with police without valid orders so that they should succumb to their pressure, in that design the police sided with them and resorted to Lathi-charge and security guards resorted to the gun fire with the result some of the workers sustained pellet injuries and one of them died. There was a stampede. In that process one of the security guards fell into the rivulet and sustained head-injury. He also died. It is also argued that there was no unlawful assembly formed by the workmen. There was a stampede. In that process one of the security guards fell into the rivulet and sustained head-injury. He also died. It is also argued that there was no unlawful assembly formed by the workmen. PW1 SI Chandermani categorically stated that when they reached at Manglahad they found that some police officials already deployed there, were playing cricket with the project workers, there was no violence before the arrival of police and security personnel, everything was normal as usual. It is argued that the possibility of getting agitated by the workers cannot be ruled out when there was a Lathi-charge by the police as well as the security guards. Learned Counsel also referred to the statement of PW5 HC Jeet Ram wherein he stated that he heard 2/3 gunshot fire which could only be fired at by the security personnel who were equipped with the arms, whereas there is nothing on record to show that any gun or weapon was with the workmen. Shri Vats also submitted that Rakesh Singha being the President of CITU had been working for the welfare of the lasboruers and in that pursuit he was counseling them and the statement of PW34 Inspector Dhian Chand is a tainted version which is not substantiated by any record to which he is alleged to have sent to the higher authorities. Further, the identification of the accused persons in the present case is shaky. Even otherwise, from the evidence adduced, two versions are deducible. The benefit of the version favouring the accused should have been weighed in their favour. To impress upon the points raised above Shri Vats also took me through the evidence on record in extenso and ventilated that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory on material particulars, inconsistent, full of exaggerations and unworthy of credit. Further that no orders or daily diary has been produced and proved that PW1 alongwith police force was deputed with the security guards of the Company. The learned trial Court is alleged to have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective which caused prejudice to the accused. 8. Further that no orders or daily diary has been produced and proved that PW1 alongwith police force was deputed with the security guards of the Company. The learned trial Court is alleged to have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective which caused prejudice to the accused. 8. Contra, Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, submitted that Rakesh Singha was the king-pin, who persuaded the workers to go on strike prior to the incident and convened meeting instigating workers that the security personnel be sent back and asked them to participate in the said meeting. He also placed reliance on the statement of PW34 Inspector Dhian Chand to support his contention and further submitted that Hari Om accused who had attended the meeting of Rakesh Singha was also present on the date of alleged incident alongwith other accomplice when the security persons alongwith police had arrived there, when the stones were pelted on the complainant party followed by the other workers they were present. According to Shri Negi, workers were the aggressors and the security personnel as well as the police officials had tried to defend themselves. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have meticulously and carefully scanned and reappraised the evidence on record. 10. It is a settled law that the act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other accused. To prove conspiracy it is necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy is established by the prosecution for the application of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, which carves out an exception to this law of conspiracy. But Section 10 comes into play only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence. There should be, in other words, a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his coconspirator. Once such prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others. Once such prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others. It is relevant not only for the purpose of providing and proving the existence of conspiracy, but also qua others as party to it. Once the accused is proved to be a party to a criminal conspiracy which led to commission of offence by other co-accused, it cannot be said that the accused responsible for the conspiracy who did not participate in the commission of the offence could not be convicted for the main offence. The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 , held that there is a vital difference between (i) abetment in any conspiracy, (ii) criminal conspiracy. The former is defined under the second clause of Section 107 and the latter under Section 120-A. The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy created under section 120-A is a bare agreement to commit an offence, which has been made punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than a mere conspiracy. There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. Thus the punishment for abetting the conspiracy and conspiracy is also different. 11. In the instant case, the prosecution is heavily relying upon abetment as well as of conspiracy and for that the statement of PW34 Inspector Dhian Chand is pressed against accused Rakesh Singha. 12. Admittedly, ‘Loyal Security Personnel Bombay’ had arrived at Rampur on 20.6.1999. According to PW34 Inspector Dhian Chand, a meeting was held on 17.6.1999 by Rakesh Singha co-accused at CITU office, Kotla and about 26 employees of the Company had attended the said meeting, but at that time the Security Personnel had not reached nor proved to have been called by the management. In the second meeting addressed on 22.6.1999 at the same place he is also alleged to have instigated the workers present there informing them that the security personnel had arrived and they shall also be sent back and whosever participated in that movement would be the real Comrade. In the second meeting addressed on 22.6.1999 at the same place he is also alleged to have instigated the workers present there informing them that the security personnel had arrived and they shall also be sent back and whosever participated in that movement would be the real Comrade. This witness having stated to have prepared the report and had sent the same to the higher authorities. Pertinently, the said Inspector was allegedly posted at Jeori at that time. There is nothing on record to show that he was present at Manglahad. The prosecution has not proved his report so sent by him to his higher authorities, which could have entitled this Court to arrive at the truth. The said witness did not deny rather admitted in his cross-examination that Rakesh Singha had been working for the welfare of the labourers in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged in his cross-examination that he has been implicated in many false cases to curtail his popularity but the witness expressed his ignorance about these facts. Now his statement is required to be examined in the light of statement of PW1 SI Chandermani. 13. PW1 nowhere stated about the presence of Rakesh Singha on the day of alleged occurrence. Even he did not identify any of the assailants, who had either dragged him from the room or PW3 Deepak Surinder Kumar in whose room the said Inspector was sitting. According to him, there were about 500 persons at the place of occurrence. He categorically stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence he saw some police officials already deployed in the project site were playing cricket with the workers who were on strike since February, 1999 and there was no incident of any violence till the date of alleged occurrence which goes to show that till the arrival of the security personnel everything was going on well and the workers were resorting to the methods of disagreement which were permissible under the law. 14. Further Chandermani stated that when he alongwith police officials and security personnel reached the spot one Rajinder Kaushal, who was not an accused, had picked up a stone and no overt-act has been attributed to Hari Om (deceased accused) at that time. 14. Further Chandermani stated that when he alongwith police officials and security personnel reached the spot one Rajinder Kaushal, who was not an accused, had picked up a stone and no overt-act has been attributed to Hari Om (deceased accused) at that time. He also stated that police officials and the security personnel concealed themselves behind the vehicle and when the security personnel left the place of incident the workers chased them and pelted stones. It was thereafter he went to the room of PW3 Deepak Surinder Kumar who was allegedly dragged out. PW1 also stated that PW2 Constable Bahadur Singh had accompanied him, but according to PW2 Bahadur Singh, he was already deployed at the project site. He did not state about the presence of any worker to whom Rakesh Singha had addressed. 15. PW2 Constable Bahadur Singh, as already stated above, had gone out of track against the initial case set-up by the prosecution stating about the presence of accused Rakesh Singha on the spot, which is contrary to the prosecution story itself. Significantly, but he did not state about the arrival of Rajinder Kaushal, Hari Om on the spot, rather stated that when the security persons arrived at the spot the workers did not allow them to enter the premises of the complex. They whistled and many workers came there and pelted stones and he could not identify the workers who pelted the stones. His statement qua the arrival of Hari Om and Rajinder Kaushal and picking up the stones does not corroborate the version of PW1 aforesaid. 16. Further, PW3 Deepak Surinder Kumar though stated about his dragging out from the room, but he failed to name or identify any one of the accused, as such he was declared hostile and confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but denied having given any statement put to him. He also stated in the cross-examination by the accused that he was not familiar with all the workers of the Company and did not disclose the name of any person to the police as assaulter. He further admitted that on the day of alleged incident about 150 to 200 persons had assembled. Though he did not hear the gunshot fire, but he stated to have seen the people and the security personnel running here and there when the stones were being pelted. He further admitted that on the day of alleged incident about 150 to 200 persons had assembled. Though he did not hear the gunshot fire, but he stated to have seen the people and the security personnel running here and there when the stones were being pelted. PW5 HC Jeet Ram also made the similar statement. He admitted in his cross-examination that in that stampede a security personnel also fell down on the ground and had heard 2/3 gunshots. 17. PW6 Constable Kishori Lal was accompanying PW1 SI Chandermani. According to him, after the gunshot fire workers of the Company ran here and there and both the sides sustained injuries. He also did not name any of the persons who were responsible of injuring PW1 SI Chandermani and other constables. 18. PW9 HC Dheeraj Sain stated that when the police and the security persons had arrived at the spot and Chandermani tried to pacify the workers and told the workers to allow the security personnel to enter in the premises of the Company, it was thereafter a jeep came and some persons, namely Bhagat Singh Kaushal, Hari Om, Bihari Lal, Kishan Singh, Lekh Raj, Nar Singh, Kuldeep and Ranbir came there with stones, sticks and rods in their hands. His statement is against the statement of PW1 SI Chandermani, who stated that it was only Rajinder Kaushal and Hari Om, who came from the vehicle. He further stated that when SI Chandermani tried to pacify, then it was Bhagat Singh accused who asked the security personnel as to why they entered in the factory premises without their consent. It was thereafter slogans were raised and stones were pelted. He further stated that SI Chandermani was beaten by the workers and also by Hari Om, Bhagat Singh, Bihari Lal, Kishan Singh, Nar Singh, Ranbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh. When confronted with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the above material facts were not found mentioned therein, though he admitted that the workers were playing cricket with the police officials already deployed at Manglahad complex and when they reached the spot the atmosphere was quite peaceful. He could not say whether Chandermani was in possession of some authority letter to bring security personnel in the premises of the Company. He could not say whether Chandermani was in possession of some authority letter to bring security personnel in the premises of the Company. He also admitted that after the gunshot the people started running here and there and in that consequence some of the security personnel fell down on the ground and some ran to take shelter. The arrival of the vehicle and the presence of the persons named by him on the spot was specifically disputed in cross-examination. 19. PW25 Shiv Pal Singh Raghuvanshi, Personnel Manager of the Company, stated that the relations between the Company and the workmen were cordial, though accused Rakesh Singha used to visit premises of the Company. According to him, he used to instigate the workers of the Company. They had earlier deployed Lancer Security Force. The workers in support of Rakesh Singha used to threaten and to call other workers from their residential houses to attend their meeting. The security personnel and the workers of the Company who intended to work were afraid, as such additional security personnel were employed at the place known as Badhal, who were not allowed to be there. Accordingly, further services of additional security force were called. It was in that process 30/40 persons of Loyal Security Force, Bombay had arrived at the spot under the protection of the police. He denied that the security personnel were called in order to suppress the labour union. He stated that the workers of the Company were asked by accused Rakesh Singha to join him. The workers of the Company remained on strike since 19.2.1999 and after about one month the workers joined the work. Again after one month they went on strike. He denied that the security personnel were called in order to curb the strike. He admitted that he did not see the entire episode because he concealed himself under a dumper. He admitted the death of one security personnel. He could not state with certainty that Bhagat Singh accused was with them and also that he was also an accused in the cross-case registered by the workers with respect to the murder of their colleague. 20. PW29 Constable Keshav Nand was posted in Police Station, Jhakri where he was there for the last about 4½ years. He was accompanied by PW1 SI Chandermani. He admitted that those days the workers were on strike. 20. PW29 Constable Keshav Nand was posted in Police Station, Jhakri where he was there for the last about 4½ years. He was accompanied by PW1 SI Chandermani. He admitted that those days the workers were on strike. SI Chandermani as well as HC Dheeraj Sain sustained injuries. When he failed to disclose the names of the labourers he was declared hostile and confronted with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he disowned. He stated that he did not supply the names of any of the accused persons nor he could identify them. He further stated that the police officials had fired the gunshot after pelting of the stones by the labourers. 21. PW35 HC Ram Singh was on duty at Manglahad. He was declared hostile though he made the statement that on 25.6.1999 he was present there when the security guards had arrived. The workers whistled and came out near the main gate of the Company. SI Chandermani also came in a police vehicle. The workers of the Company pelted stones upon the security guards due to which they sustained injuries. Since there was a heavy brick-bating the security guards fired gunshot in the air. He also ran from the place to take shelter. SI Chandermani was confined in the cabin. There was a huge crowd and he did not name anyone responsible for the incident. Though the prosecution examined PW39 Suresh Bithal, but his examination-in-chief was deferred and is not complete thereafter he was not examined. Therefore, his statement looses its importance. 22. PW42 Tulsi Dass, PW43 Ram Saran Singh, PW44 Arun Kumar Tiwari, PW45 Amar Singh and PW46 Santosh Kumar, were the members of the armed ‘Loyal Security Personnel, Bombay’. All are hostile witnesses. They stated having arrived at the place of incident on 25.6.1999. On their arrival, according to them, the workers started raising slogans against the management of the NJJV. The workers pelted the stones upon the security guards and police officials and they did not state that they took shelter behind the vehicle. They did not refer to any vehicle from which Bhagat Singh etc. or Rajinder Kaushal had arrived at the spot and instigated the workmen for pelting the stones, as stated by PW1. The workers pelted the stones upon the security guards and police officials and they did not state that they took shelter behind the vehicle. They did not refer to any vehicle from which Bhagat Singh etc. or Rajinder Kaushal had arrived at the spot and instigated the workmen for pelting the stones, as stated by PW1. They denied that the accused persons had been the members of the work force of NJJV and the said force indulged in pelting the stones and causing hurt to the police and the security force. 23. PW41 is Hukam Singh, who was Inspector/SHO, at Police Station, Jhakri and probably SI Chandermani was additional SHO. He took up investigation of the case and effected recoveries of the stones, rods etc. In cross-examination he stated that the pellets of firearms had struck against the workers and one of the workers of the project had also received fatal injuries by the firearms. 24. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I find inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishments and improvements in the statements of the above witnesses. If one witness had tried to prove the case, another witness had shattered and contradicted him on material particulars. But, however, one set of the witnesses stated that only Hari Om and Rajinder Kaushal alongwith few others had arrived at the spot when the security personnel had reached the main gate of the project and many other examined in the Court referred to the arrival of other CITU workers, but they are consistent on one point that on the arrival of armed security personnel and the police, the workers who had not resorted to any violence earlier and even on their arrival they were playing cricket with the police personnel already deployed at the project site. There is nothing on record to show that the workmen were armed, whereas the Security personnel were having guns. One such gun was fired at, had hit one of the workers who died and injured few other workers, they had sustained pellet injuries, as stated by the doctor. Thus two views are deducible from the evidence on record one pointing out only towards accused Hari Om (deceased) and Rajinder Kaushal not an accused having instigated the workers and another that without instigation the guards opened fire which hit few workers leading one dead. Qua others, there is no cogent and convincing evidence. Thus two views are deducible from the evidence on record one pointing out only towards accused Hari Om (deceased) and Rajinder Kaushal not an accused having instigated the workers and another that without instigation the guards opened fire which hit few workers leading one dead. Qua others, there is no cogent and convincing evidence. It is well established that the benefit of the view which is favourable to the accused has to be given to the accused. Otherwise also, in the circumstances aforesaid, it has not surfaced who was the aggressor. 25. The prosecution evidence has also failed to establish under what authority PW1 SI Chandermani was accompanying the armed security personnel to the spot when he had no valid orders. Even the departure of the police party alongwith the security personnel has not been recorded in the Roznamcha(daily diary), which regulates the movement of the police officials while discharging their duty. There is also no record to substantiate the statement of PW34 Inspector Dhian Chand. The facts reveal that the security personnel and the police were brought on the spot by the Company to suppress the agitation and to compel them to resume the work by the workers in the project. The situation appears to have been mishandled by the police which ultimately turned into an ugly incident regarding which the prosecution is not clear as to who was the aggressor. 26. Against the aforesaid background, when the evidence is not worth inspiring and is full of contradictions and also for want of proper identification with respect to the roll of the accused persons, in my opinion, none of the accused persons could have been convicted and sentenced for the above offences. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellants are hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 27. The accused persons are accordingly discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case and the fine amount, if deposited shall be refunded to them. 28. Send down the record.