Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2531 (PNJ)

Ram Avtar v. State Of Punjab

2019-09-12

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, RAJIV SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, i.e. CRA-S-67-SB of 2014, CRA-S-225-SB of 2014 and CRA-S264-SB of 2014, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and the order dated 23.12.2013, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 14.05.2003. Appellants Ram Avtar Singh, Uttam Chand Suneja, Bangali Babu Tiwari and Parmod Kumar alias Danny were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148/353/342/332/149 IPC. 3. Co-Accused Manohar Lal, Shanti Sarup and Jarnail Singh died during pendency of trial. 4. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :- Name of the appellant Under Section Sentenced to Ram Avtar 148 IPC 332/149 IPC 342/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Uttam Chand 148 IPC 332/149 IPC 342/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Bangali Babu 148 IPC 332/149 IPC 342/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Parmod Kumar Danny alias Danny 148 IPC 332/149 IPC 342/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Parmod Kumar Danny alias Danny 148 IPC 332/149 IPC 342/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 25.10.1991, ASI Narinder Pal Singh along with ASI Hardam Singh and other police officials was present on duty near Bhawani Cotton Mills, Abohar. The workers of the Mill had resorted to strike for the last 4-5 days. Master Uttam Ram, Ram Avtar, Danny and Shanti Sarup along with 2000-2500 workers were delivering speeches. They were claiming that in case their demands were not accepted by the Mill Management, they would set ablaze the Mill. They tried to enter the Mill. Shri Megh Raj, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, who was also present there, tried to persuade them for not taking the law in their own hands. The crowd started throwing brick bats and petrol bombs at the police. The Executive Magistrate ordered for use of tear gas shells and thereafter 'lathi charge' was ordered in order to disperse the crowd. Thereafter, 7-8 fires were shot with intention to kill the police officials. The Executive Magistrate, then, ordered for firing in the air, in self defence. Kuldeep Singh, PHG Kala Ram and PHG Nand Kishore were dragged inside the Mill. The crowd also dragged the Executive Magistrate and the police officials up to the Railway crossing by use of force and encircled the police party. The police fired in self defence, as a result of which 20-25 labourers were injured. Some police officials also received injuries. The crowd dispersed. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 6. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The police fired in self defence, as a result of which 20-25 labourers were injured. Some police officials also received injuries. The crowd dispersed. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 6. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. They pleaded that the police had lodged false FIR to save themselves. According to them, FIR was registered against the police officials, when the workmen approached this Court. Bangali Babu and Parmod Kumar Danny alias Danny were not the employees of the cotton mill. The appellants examined one witness in their defence. 7. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed herein-above. Hence, these appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned Court below. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully. 10. Pw.1 Dr. Lal Chand Thukraj medico legally examined Jagdish Singh. He noticed a reddish contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on the lateral aspect of left eye in middle. The injury was declared simple. According to him, the weapon used was blunt. The probable duration was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Narinder Pal Singh, and noticed a reddish contusion with abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of right forearm just above the wrist joint. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Amarjit Singh. He noticed a reddish contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the back of left thigh in lower part. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt and the probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Sukhmander Singh, and noticed a reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the back of right side of chest in scapular region. The injury was simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Tarlok Singh. He also medico legally examined Sukhmander Singh, and noticed a reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the back of right side of chest in scapular region. The injury was simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Tarlok Singh. He noticed a reddish contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of left forearm in upper part. This injury was also declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt and the probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He medico legally examined Sawan Singh, and noticed a reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the back of left side of chest. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Piara Singh. He noticed a reddish contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of left thigh. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He medico legally examined Raminder Singh, and noticed a reddish contusion 9 cm x 3 cm on the back of right side of chest in middle. The injury was declared as simple. According to him, the weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Suman Kumar and noticed a reddish contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the back of left buttock. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt and the probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He also medico legally examined Thana Singh, and noticed an abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm on the back of left forearm in upper part. The injury was declared as simple. The weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 6 hours. He also medico legally examined Sukhbir Singh. He noticed a reddish contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the back of right shoulder joint. The injury was declared as simple. The kind of weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He medico legally examined Bankey Lal. The injury was kept under observation for X-ray examination. Probable time as per bed head ticket was 45 hours. The injury was declared as simple. The kind of weapon used was blunt. The probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. He medico legally examined Bankey Lal. The injury was kept under observation for X-ray examination. Probable time as per bed head ticket was 45 hours. After receipt of X-ray report, the injury was declared grievous. 11. Pw.5 Dr. R.S. Atwal medico legally examined Kala Ram and noticed a lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the back of right index finger on its upper one third. Fresh bleeding was present. According to him, the injury was caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration of injury was within six hours. He also medico legally examined Kuldeep Singh and noticed a lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on right side of forehead just above lateral half of right eye-brow. He also medico legally examined Nand Kishore and noticed swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on right cheek including area below and area above the eye. Congestion of eye was present. According to him, the injury was caused by blunt weapon. Its probable duration was within six hours. He also medico legally examined Naik C.D. Parshad and noticed swelling all over on the front of left knee joint. It was caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration of this injury was within 24 hours. 12. Pw.6 Harcharan Singh deposed that he was posted at Police Station City Abohar as ASI on 25.10.1991. The workers of Bhawani Cotton Mill were on strike. It was going on for last so many days. Ram Avtar and Uttam Chand were giving provocative speeches. ASI Narinder Pal Singh along with other police officials was present there. At about 3.15 PM, a message was received on wireless from ASI Narinder Pal Singh that 48 labourers had started brick bating at the police. He also went to the spot. All the labourers had dispersed, except the injured. The injured were removed to hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the incident. He did not know about the whereabouts of the accused present in the court. He admitted that he was facing trial under Section 302 IPC pertaining to this incident. 13. Pw.7 ASI Hardam Singh testified that he was posted as ASI at Police Station City Abohar on 25.10.1991. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the incident. He did not know about the whereabouts of the accused present in the court. He admitted that he was facing trial under Section 302 IPC pertaining to this incident. 13. Pw.7 ASI Hardam Singh testified that he was posted as ASI at Police Station City Abohar on 25.10.1991. He along with ASI Tarlok Singh ASI Narinder Pal Singh and other police officials went to Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar. The labourers were on strike for the last about four/five days. When they reached at the gate of Bhawani Cotton Mill, the main gate of the Mill was closed. 2000-2500 labourers/workers were present there. Master Uttam Chand, Ram Avtar, Shanti Sarup, Jarnail Singh Brar and Manohar Lal Patwari were delivering speeches to the Mill workers. They were instigating them. ASI Narinder Pal Singh went to the office of SDM and DSP to apprise them about the facts of the case. ASI Narinder Pal Singh along with Naib Tehsildar Megh Raj came to the spot. The authorities told the workers to disperse. Ram Avtar started delivering the speech to the Mill workers by instigating them. The Naib Tehsildar and ASI Narinder Pal Singh tried their best to patch up the matter. Narinder Pal Singh told the workers in Punjabi language to disperse. The Duty Magistrate ordered the police to fire tear gas shells. They complied with the orders. The workers started throwing petrol bombs, brick bats and tear gas shells towards the police party. The Executive Magistrate ordered the police to use 'lathi charge'. They complied with the orders. The unlawful gathering pulled PHG Nand Kishore, PHG Kahla Ram and Constable Kuldip Singh inside the gathering with intention to kill them. The Executive Magistrate Megh Raj ordered them to fire in the air. A canter came on the spot. The occupants of the canter were firing from their guns. The unlawful assembly dispersed. The workers caused injuries to the police officials and torn their dresses. The police officials and workers were got admitted in Civil Hospital, Abohar. Six workers died. He got conducted the post mortem examination of one worker. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not identify the accused present in the court. Their names were told by the counsel as Bangali Babu and Danny. He did not know any of the accused present in the court. 14. Six workers died. He got conducted the post mortem examination of one worker. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not identify the accused present in the court. Their names were told by the counsel as Bangali Babu and Danny. He did not know any of the accused present in the court. 14. Pw.8 HC Kuldip Singh deposed that he was posted at Police Station City Abohar on 25.10.1991. He along with ASI Narinder Pal Singh and other police officials had gone to Bhawani Cotton Mill, where labourers of the Mill were on strike. They were on strike for the last four/five days. Ram Avtar, Uttam Chand, Shanti Sarup, Manohar Lal Patwari, Jarnail Singh and others were addressing the rally near the gate of the Mill. They were instigating the workers. ASI Narinder Pal Singh and Executive Magistrate Megh Ram asked the leaders to disperse. The workers started throwing brick bats and stones towards the police party. ASI Narinder Pal Singh and Megh Raj requested the leaders to stop throwing stones and brick bats. The Naib Tehsildar ordered to use tear gas shells. The police threw tear gas shells towards the workers. The Naib Tehsildar, then, ordered 'lathi charge'. The mob did not disperse. They pushed the police force upto the railway crossing. He further deposed that they took him, Kala Ram, PHG Nand Kishore by dragging them, gave them beatings and torn their clothes. All of them received injuries in the occurrence. The workers encircled the police party and fired seven/eight shots towards the police party. Then Tehsildar ordered them to fire in the air. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., only name of Ram Avtar was mentioned. 15. Pw.9 ASI Piara Singh testified that he along with ASI Narinder Pal Singh and other police officials was present on the spot. Ram Avtar, Uttam Chand, Shanti Sarup, Manohar Lal Patwari, Jarnail Singh along with others were addressing the rally. They were instigating the workers. The police requested the workers to disperse. The workers started throwing brick bats and stones towards the police. The police party threw tear gas shells. The labourers did not disperse. Then Naib Tehsildar ordered for 'lathi charge'. Even then the mob did not disperse. The workers took Kuldip Singh, Kala Ram and PHG Nand Kishore by dragging them. Their dresses were torn. The workers started throwing brick bats and stones towards the police. The police party threw tear gas shells. The labourers did not disperse. Then Naib Tehsildar ordered for 'lathi charge'. Even then the mob did not disperse. The workers took Kuldip Singh, Kala Ram and PHG Nand Kishore by dragging them. Their dresses were torn. He along with other police officials received injuries in the occurrence. The workers encircled the police party and fired seven/eight shots towards the police party. The Tehsildar ordered to fire in the air. Thereafter, plastic bullets were fired. Tehsildar again ordered the police to fire towards the mob. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not given any evidence against any of the accused. He was never joined in any identification parade of the accused. He admitted that the blue canter, from which shots were fired, was of police party. 16. Pw.10 HC Ravinder Singh deposed that he along with ASI Narinder Pal Singh and other police officials was present at the spot. The labourers of the Mill had gone on strike. The leaders of the Mill were addressing the rally. ASI Narinder Pal Singh asked the workers to disperse. The workers did not disperse. The police used tear gas shells. Thereafter, Naib Tehsildar ordered for 'lathi charge'. The unlawful assembly did not disperse. The workers took Kuldip Singh, Kala Ram and PHG Nand Kishore by dragging them. They also beat them and their dresses were torn. He along with other police officials received injuries. Tehsildar ordered the police to fire in the air. Plastic bullets were also fired. Tehsildar again ordered the police to fire towards the mob. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know any of the accused personally. He had not given any evidence against any of the accused. He was not joined in any identification parade. 17. Pw.11 Thana Singh testified that he along with ASI Narinder Pal Singh and other police officials went to Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar. The labourers of the Mill were on strike. The leaders were addressing the rally. Narinder Pal Singh asked the workers to disperse. They did not disperse. Tear gas shells were thrown at the workers on the orders of the Naib Tehsildar. The workers did not disperse. Then Naib Tehsildar ordered for 'lathi charge'. The mob still did not disperse. The labourers of the Mill were on strike. The leaders were addressing the rally. Narinder Pal Singh asked the workers to disperse. They did not disperse. Tear gas shells were thrown at the workers on the orders of the Naib Tehsildar. The workers did not disperse. Then Naib Tehsildar ordered for 'lathi charge'. The mob still did not disperse. The workers took Kuldip Singh, Kala Ram and PHG Nand Kishore by dragging them. Their dresses were torn. He received injuries in the occurrence. The police fired in the air. Thereafter, plastic bullets were also fired. Tehsildar then ordered the police to fire towards the mob. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know any of the accused personally. He had not given any evidence against them. He was never joined in any identification parade. 18. Pw.12 Harbhaj Ram deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station City Abohar on 25.10.1991. He had gone to Ferozepur in connection with court evidence. He reached Abohar on receipt of information and recorded the statement of ASI Narinder Pal Singh. He visited the spot and prepared rough site plan. In his cross-examination, he admitted that initially no action was taken against the police officials. He also admitted that this Court quashed the present FIR and ordered to register a case against forty two persons, including police officials, Mill Management and Mill security persons. 19. Pw.13 Gurmit Singh Randhawa testified that he was posted as DSP, Abohar, on 04.02.1998. Investigation of this case was handed over to him. He arrested accused Ram Avtar, Uttam Chand and Bangali Babu on 23.07.1998. Accused Shanti Sarup was arrested on 26.07.1998. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no test identification parade was got conducted by him. 20. Pw.15 Puran Chand deposed that he remained employee of Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar from the year 1969 to 01.06.1998. He did not know any thing about the occurrence. He was not present at the time of occurrence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied the statement recorded on 15.01.1998. He denied the suggestion that Ram Avtar, Danny, Uttam Chand, Jarnail Singh were instigating the workers. He also denied the suggestion that Naib Tehsildar and police officials tried to pacify the accused. He also denied that the police used tear gas shells and fired plastic bullets. 21. He denied the statement recorded on 15.01.1998. He denied the suggestion that Ram Avtar, Danny, Uttam Chand, Jarnail Singh were instigating the workers. He also denied the suggestion that Naib Tehsildar and police officials tried to pacify the accused. He also denied that the police used tear gas shells and fired plastic bullets. 21. Pw.16 Banwari Lal testified that he was employee of Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar, from the year 1970 to 1998. He did not know any thing about the occurrence. He was not present at the time of occurrence. When he returned to the cotton Mill premises, he saw that about eight labourers died in the exchange of fire and about 20 labourers were injured. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied the statement recorded on 15.01.1998. He denied that accused Ram Avtar, Uttam Chand, Jarnail Singh Brar were instigating the workers. He also denied that the police threw tear gas shells, and fired plastic bullets in order to save themselves. 22. Pw.17 Ramakant deposed that he was working in the tea stall of Vikram Singh. He did not know what happened. He was declare hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied the recording of his statement by the police on 08.09.1998. He denied that accused Ram Avtar and Uttam Chand etc. were protesting on 25.10.1991. He denied that the police and Tehsildar tried to pacify the workers. He also denied the suggestion that if the firing was not resorted to on the labourers on the order of Tehsildar, then the labourers would have killed the police officials. 23. Pw.18 Suresh has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied the recording of his statement by the police in this case on 15.01.1998. He denied that Ram Avtar and Uttam Chand etc. were instigating the workers. He categorically denied that the incident had taken place due to provocative speech made by Ram Avtar. 24. Pw.19 Inspector Gurjant Singh testified that there was conflict between the labourers and owners of the Mill. The police was deputed there. Mr. Brar and Bangali Babu were present at the main gate of the Mill. They were raising slogans 'Murdabad Zindabad'. Narinder Pal Singh ASI was incharge of the police party. 24. Pw.19 Inspector Gurjant Singh testified that there was conflict between the labourers and owners of the Mill. The police was deputed there. Mr. Brar and Bangali Babu were present at the main gate of the Mill. They were raising slogans 'Murdabad Zindabad'. Narinder Pal Singh ASI was incharge of the police party. Megh Raj, Naib Tehsildar, was deputed on the spot. Brick bats were pelted on the police party. Naib Tehsildar ordered to use tear gas shells. The police resorted to 'lathi charge'. The police also fired in the air. Thereafter, Naib Tehsildar passed the orders to open fire at the workers. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally withheld the name of accused persons, namely Ram Avtar, Uttam Chand, Suneja and Parmod alias Danny in his examination-in-chief to help the accused persons. 25. Pw.20 ASI Harbans Singh deposed that he was member of the tear gas staff. He along with Narinder Pal ASI and other police officials went to Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar at about 11.00 AM. The workers of the Mill were holding dharna at that place. Megh Raj Tehsildar was present. Ram Avtar and Uttam Chand were addressing the workers. There was gathering of 2000-2500 workers. They were saying that in case their demands were not accepted, they would set the Mill on fire. Narinder Pal Singh ASI asked the workers to disperse. Naib Tehsildar ordered the ASI to use tear gas. He threw tear gas shells. The workers picked up the tear gas shells so thrown and threw the same on the police force. The mob did not disperse. Naib Tehsildar ordered 'lathi charge'. The workers started throwing brick bats and stones towards the police force. He heard the noise of three fire shots being fired from inside the premises of the Mill. The Naib Tehsildar, then, ordered the police to open fire in the air. In the meantime, another canter of blue colour came on the spot. The police force was in that canter. The workers kept on throwing stones on the police. The police force was pushed beyond the railway crossing. Shots were fired by the CRPF and BSF personnel. The Naib Tehsildar, then, ordered the police to open fire in the air. In the meantime, another canter of blue colour came on the spot. The police force was in that canter. The workers kept on throwing stones on the police. The police force was pushed beyond the railway crossing. Shots were fired by the CRPF and BSF personnel. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the names of Bangali Babu, Uttam Chand and Parmod alias Danny did not find mention. He had given the names of these three accused for the first time in the court on 13.09.2013. He also admitted that during investigation, he had not disclosed the names of these persons to the Investigating Officer. The police authorities came on the canter and resorted to firing. The road was never blocked and there was free flow of traffic on the road. 26. Pw.21 Vinod Kumar deposed that Gurmit Singh Randhawa, DSP, Sub Division Abohar, took the entire record from him, on 08.07.1998. 27. Dw.1 Vijay Kumar Behal deposed that he had brought the report of inquiry dated 26.02.1992, conducted by Shri G. Vajralingam, IAS, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. 28. The case of the prosecution is that the workers of Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar, voluntarily caused grievous hurts to the public servants on 25.10.1991. PW.6 Harcharan Singh, PW.7 ASI Hardam Singh, PW.8 HC Kuldip Singh, PW.9 ASI Piara Singh, PW.10 HC Ravinder Singh, PW.11 Thana Singh, PW.12 Harbhaj Ram, PW.13 Gurmit Singh Randhawa and PW.20 ASI Harbans Singh did not specifically name the appellants who caused injuries to them. Their statements are general in nature. Their version is that the police was deployed on the spot. Narinder Pal Singh ASI asked the workers to disperse. The workers did not disperse. They started pelting stones and brickbats on the police party. The police used tear gas shells, 'lathi charge' and plastic bullets and thereafter fired on the mob. 29. Pw.20 ASI Harbans Singh admitted in his cross-examination that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., names of Bangali Babu, Uttam Chand and Parmod alias Danny were not mentioned. He also admitted that the road was never blocked. There was free flow of traffic on the road. PW.6 Harcharan Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not know the whereabouts of the accused. He also admitted that the road was never blocked. There was free flow of traffic on the road. PW.6 Harcharan Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not know the whereabouts of the accused. He had not witnessed the occurrence. PW.7 ASI Hardam Singh has not specifically named any worker. PW.8 HC Kuldip Singh deposed that he had received injuries. However, he has not named the appellants that they had caused injuries to him. PW.9 ASI Piara Singh has also deposed that he received injuries, but has not specifically named the appellants. His statement is vague. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not given any evidence against any of the accused. PW.10 HC Ravinder Singh deposed that he received injuries, but he too has not specifically named the appellants. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not know any of the accused personally before the occurrence or after the occurrence. He had not given any evidence against any of the accused. PW.11 Thana Singh deposed that he along with other police officials received injuries. He has also not specifically named the appellants. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know any of the accused personally. He had not given any evidence against any of the accused. He was not joined in the identification parade. 30. Pw.15 Puran Chand, PW.16 Banwari Lal, PW.17 Ramakant and PW.18 Suresh have not supported the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile. According to them, they were not present on the spot. PW.19 Inspector Gurjant Singh did not name the accused, who had caused injuries to the public servants. 31. It is true that as per the case of the prosecution, injuries were caused to the police personnel, but it has not come in evidence who has caused those injuries. The case of the prosecution is also that the police force was wrongfully confined. It has come in evidence that there was free flow of traffic on the road. No evidence has come on record that the police force was wrongfully confined. It has come on record that the police officials were entering and coming out of the Mill premises freely. No witness has deposed that in what manner they were confined and their movement was restricted. No evidence has come on record that the police force was wrongfully confined. It has come on record that the police officials were entering and coming out of the Mill premises freely. No witness has deposed that in what manner they were confined and their movement was restricted. The prosecution has not led any evidence that how the appellants wrongfully restrained the police personnel to prevent them to proceed beyond certain limits. Cross FIR was also registered against the police officials with the intervention of this Court. They were convicted by the trial court. Moreover, the prosecution has not cited Naib Tehsildar Megh Raj as a witness in this case, though he was a material witness. However, he appeared as a witness in the cross FIR case and admitted that he had not ordered the police to open fire at the unlawful assembly. 32. In order to prove the charge under Section 332 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellants voluntarily caused hurt, the person so hurt was a public servant and such public servant was then discharging his duty as such. The prosecution was also required to prove that the appellants have done it with intent to prevent the police from discharging its duty or in consequence of something done or attempted to be done by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. There is not an iota of evidence that which of the appellants caused injury to whom. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the appellants had intent to prevent the police officials from discharging their duties. Similarly, there is no adequate evidence to prove the charge framed against the appellants under Section 342 IPC. The police force was not confined to a particular place. They were free to move. Thus, the charges framed against the appellants are not proved. 32. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. All these appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.