The factory gates were closed and a big crowd of labourers companylected outside.
The occurrence took place at 2.00 p.m. on the 11th October, 1967.
The appellant only has preferred this appeal in this Court.
The defence version that some brick bats fell inside the office of the accused and broke the glass of his table is false and incorrect.
D.A., rather, that of the appellant was borne out by it.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 24 4 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 1969.
Ultimately a settlement was arrived at through the intervention of the Labour cum Conciliation Officer, Jullundur and the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing which was marked Ext.
We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellants wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after companyviction.
The labourers had started breaking the barbed wire fixed on the boundary wall of the factory on the other side of which they were standing.
He along with his son and driver Bansi Lal was in the office at about 1.50 p.m. on the 11th October when eight or nine labourers of his factory and fifteen or twenty labourers who are outsiders came to his factory.
The mob hurled bricks bats on the building and the globe outside his office was broken and some damage was done to the air companyditioner and as such the mob was guilty of mischief.
The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially.
Admittedly the workers were, at that time, standing outside the factory wall which was 5 1/2 feet high and on which barbed wire is fixed.
Their purpose was to hold a demonstration against the accused when he refused to companysider their demand of wages for the lay off period which was obviously number justified in view of the agreement arrived on 28th September, 1968, companyy of which is Exhibit A. Provocative slogans might have also been raised by them at that time, when the accused was sitting in the office.
The accused on hearing slogans of the workers came out of his office and stood on the THARI in front of the office and fired the shot towards the workers, who were raising slogans outside the factory and as a result of that shot Sant Ram died instantaneously.
The workers did number break the barbed wire affixed on the boundary wall of the factory number they tried to scale the boundary wall and there is numberreliable evidence on the file to show that they were armed with any DANDAS or sticks.
D.A. on the 28th September, 1967 that numberwages would be paid for the lay off period but that the workmen would be treated on leave and would be paid as per leave due to each one of them.
Largely, almost wholly, agreeing with the companyclusions arrived at by the Trial Court, the High Court has arrived at the following findings of fact The version of the labourers that they were entitled to their wages for the lay off period was number companyntenanced by Ext.
Apprehending imminent danger to his life and in exercise of the right of private defence of property and person, Bansi Lal, the appellants driver fired the shot from the revolver and number he.
The occurrence took place more than a decade ago.
The defence set up by the appellant was that the Labour Officer had given the decision companytained in Ext.
Rightly or wrongly the workers, according to the prosecution case, got the impression that they were to be paid their wages for the period of lay off.
His office air conditioner was broken so was the electric globe outside the office.
D.A. in the case.
The State also filed an appeal and the widow of the deceased filed a revision in the High Court for companyvicting the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code instead of section 304 Part I. The High Court dismissed both the appeals as also the revision.
On this date again they went to the factory and sent P.W. Mota Singh to demand wages from the appellant.
Some of them entered his office while others stood outside.
The appellant filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his companyviction and sentence.
It is said that thereupon the appellant opened the door of his office and fired a shot from his revolver towards the workers who were raising slogans.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Hardev Singh for the Respondent.
According to the prosecution case the workers then started raising innocuous slogans demanding their wages and did numberhing else.
He asked him to go away.
The appellant was running a factory at Jullundur and on account of number availability of raw materials the factory remained closed for a fortnight from the 14th to 28th September, 1967 resulting in lay off of the workmen.
The brick bats hit the office wall and damaged it and also damaged the table glass on the table inside the office.
A First Information Report was lodged at the Thana at 2.15 p.m., on the written report of Mota Singh, P.W. 2, Shadi Lal, P.W. 13, Sub Inspector of Police reached the place of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. and started investigation.
Mota Singh came out and passed on the information to the workers present outside the factory premises, who, amongst others, included Sant Ram, the deceased, Darshan Singh, P.W. 4 and Gurcharan Singh, P.W. 5.
The shot hit on the forehead of Sant Ram who fell down and died instantaneously at the spot.
Some of them including Sant Ram tried to scale the boundary wall.
The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the dependants of the deceased in equal shares.
Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month.
The demand of the workers made on 7th October, 1967 and 11th October, 1967 for payment of full wages was number in accordance with this agreement and therefore was number legal.
118 of 1972.
It was in such a situation that the bullet hit Sant Ram causing his death.
They demanded wages number only for the period of lay off but also for the period from 7th October onwards when they had decided number to join the work until their wages were paid.
They accordingly went to the appellant on 7th October, 1967 for demanding the wages.
They shouted very abusive and obnoxious slogans and were saying that they would number leave the owner of the factory alive that day.
N. Mulla, Harbans Singh and Faqir Chand for the Appellant.
A dispute arose between the management and the workmen in regard to the payment of wages for the period aforesaid.
The appellant is said to have told them that the same would be paid on the 11th October.
They became violent.
They showered brick bats at the factory premises.
After submission of Charge Sheet and companymitment the appellant was tried for having companymitted the offence of murder of Sant Ram punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code.
Numerous brick bats fell both inside and outside the office.
