JUDGMENT

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 controlled and some of them in the private sector. Labour and industrial laws of the country passed after independence created a sense of new awakening in the labour force which became more and more conscious of the rights and privileges conferred on them by the laws. Although disputes between the labour and management are now a common feature of the industrial life of the country 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 coldblooded murder in broad day light and that too in a Court premises.

2. 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 shots by a country-made pistol on an officer of the management and killed him at the spot.

3. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and need not be repeated. The matter, therefore, lies within a narrow compass and we propose only to examine the reasons and the inferences drawn by the High Court for aqquitting the respondent, Madhu.

4. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as the company), had undertaken the construction, of Jamuna Hydel Project in Khadar, District Dehradun.

5. To begin with, it appears that there was some dispute about the dearness allowance claim of the labour from the management which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent, who was the Secretary of the Union, was looking after the case on behalf of the workers, while P. Ws. 5 and 7 were the officers appearing on behalf of the management before the Tribunal. The deceased, S. J. Sirgaonkar. was Deputy Personnel Manager of the Bombay Branch of M/s. Hindustan Construction Company. He was shot dead by the respondent after he (deceased). along with other officers of the management, had come out of the Tribunals office at Meerut after filing their written statements. 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 formal FIR was registered. The Panchnama was prepared and other formalities were, however, done at the spot.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful consideration 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 conclusion that the prosecution case against the respondent was fully proved and accordingly he convicted the respondent under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He also convicted the respondent under S. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to one years R.I. The decision of the Sessions Judge which was reversed by the High Court and the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7. Normally, this Court does not interfere against the judgment of a High Court purely on appreciation of evidence. But, in this case, there appear to be very special circumstances which have been either overlooked or not considered by the High Court Besides this, the High Court does not appear to have examined the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the witnesses but has proceeded to acquit the respondent on general grounds which as we shall show hereafter, are wholly untenable.

8. It appears that July 5. 1977 was the date fixed in the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut for the parties to file their written statements, and in this connection the deceased along