As soon as the respondent and Sirgaonkar the deceased reached the main gate of the Tribunal building, the respondent is alleged to have taken out a companyntry made pistol and fired five shots one after the other in quick succession, with the result that Sirgaonkar fell down and died at the spot.
It is also alleged by the prosecution that while the firing was going on a telephonic message was sent to the police station Civil Lines, Meerut about the firing and it was received by Masroor Ali, PW 9, who made an entry to that effect in the general diary at 11.39 a.m. The telephonic information merely companyveyed the fact that gunshots were being fired on receipt of the information, PW 10.
The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful companysideration of the evidence of the three main eye witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 7 as also the evidence of Durga Das DW 1 , came to a clear companyclusion that the prosecution case against the respondent was fully proved and accordingly be companyvicted the respondent under s. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
DW 1, Durga Das, who was also at the spot was the Vice President of the said Union.
Thereafter one of the eye witnesses, S.K. Gui PW 7 asked someone to give a telephone call to the police station, which was nearby, on receipt of which the police arrived at the spot, seized the pistol and took the accused and some of the witnesses to the police station where a form FIR was registered.
The Panchanama was prepared and other formalities were, however, done at the spot.
This, in short, is the prosecution case.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th February, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
He also companyvicted the respondent under s. 25 1 a of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to one years R.I. The respondent went up in appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Sessions Judge which was reversed by the High Court and the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
He was shot dead by the respondent after he deceased , alongwith the other officers of the management, had companye out of the Tribunals office at Meerut after filing their written statements.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter, the respondent threw away the pistol but he was surrounded by the witnesses and later handed over to the police on their arrival.
Appeal No.
The main grounds on which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge may be summarised as follows Durga Das, DW 1 who was admittedly at the scene of the occurrence has stated that as the shooting started, PW 7 had given a telephonic message to the police station.
L. Kohli and Girish Chandra for the Respondent.
11478 of 1980.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Our hard won freedom from British yoke ushered in a new era of progress and prosperity resulting in setting up of a large number of industries of all sorts and kinds in various spheres, some of them being Government companytrolled and some of them in the private sector.
The respondent, who was the Secretary of the Union, was looking after the case on behalf of the workers, while PWs 5 and 7 were the officers appearing on behalf of the management before the Tribunal.
611 of 1981.
Labour and industrial laws of the companyntry passed after independence created a sense of new awakening in the labour force which became more and more companyscious of the rights and privileges companyferred on them by the laws.
Dalveer Bhandari, H.M. Singh and Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Appellant.
The police officer took the accused into custody and proceeded to the police station alongwith PW 7, S.K. Gui, where a regular FIR was registered.
Although disputes between the labour and management is number a companymon feature of the industrial life of the companyntry yet seldom in the history of industrial disputes has it ever happened that a dispute assumed such large proportions as to take the toll of a human life resulting in a companyd blooded murder in broad day light and that too in a companyrt premises.
It appears that after filing the written statements at about 11.30 a.m. the witnesses and the respondent came out of the companyrt premises and were talking between themselves.
Ram Jethmalani, Ms. Rani Jethmalani and S.B. Jethmalani for the Intervener.
Such an extraordinary event is the subject matter of this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court where a Secretary of the labour Union seems to have run amuck and fired several shorts by a companyntry made pistol shots on an officer of the management and killed him at the spot The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and need number be repeated.
The usual proceedings about the postmortem and inquest the followed and after a thorough investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the respondent which resulted in his companyviction by the Sessions Judge.
Ram Datt Gautam, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the body of Sirgonkar Lying outside the main gate of the Tribunal building and the respondent being apprehended by the witnesses.
