Back
2010 (4) Supreme 180
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
C. Magesh & Ors. etc. — Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1028-1029 of 2008
Decided on : 30-4-2010
Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 378 - In an appeal preferred under Section 378 of CrPC, no doubt, it is true that High Court has ample powers to go through the entire evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion but before reversing the finding of acquittal, certain conditions should be always kept in mind - Presumption of innocence of accused should be kept in mind - If two views of the matter are possible view favourable to the accused should be taken-Appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witness that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 39)
Facts of the Case :
Accused persons 49 in number , members of Union of BPL, were prosecuted herein in the instant case for forming an unlawful assembly in course of a Protest demonstration, for stopping private chartered bus carrying some of the employees of BPL, and setting it to fire causing death of two young women and injuries to several others all working in BPL Engineering Ltd. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record, convicted in all only 7 accused A1-, A2-, A15-, A25-, A32-, A33- A46. All other accused were acquitted by trial court. OnAppeals thereagainst,High Court while maintaining conviction of these seven accused persons additionally found guilty four other accused persons.
2.Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Held High Court in a cryptic manner, without properly discussing legal and factual aspect of matter held 4 accused guilty for commission of the said offence in addition to conviction of seven accused who had already been found guilty by trial court. After all, it was an appeal by the State against order of acquittal recorded by trial court. There was no occasion for High Court to have passed order of conviction on the same, that too without removing doubts with regard to correctness, legality and propriety of two dying declarations.Appeal filed by four accused, convicted by High Court for the first time held liable to be allowed. After going through the entire evidence critically, held that there was a great consistency in evidence of PW 1 to PW15 with regard to different roles attributed to A1-, A2-, A15-, A32- and A33 and their conviction was hence upheld .However, on account of inconsistency, improper identification and in absence of specific role being attributed to A25- and A46- their conviction could not be upheld.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J. —
1.Narration of facts of the aforesaid criminal appeals arising out of common judgment and order passed by High court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in three criminal appeals, one preferred by convicted accused, other two by State of Karnataka, would reveal shocking and sad plight as to how a labour dispute can turn hostile culminating into a civil disobedience, thus, snatching away lives of two young women and injuring several others all working in BPL Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘BPL’)
2.Before coming to the prosecution story, it is necessary to give background facts of the case so as to appreciate as to how charter of demands, of workers of Trade Union had taken an ugly shape causing death of two employees and injuries to several others.
3.BPL has eight units spread over different parts of Bangalore city, carrying on its business activities. It appears, looking to the nature of activities that are carried on by BPL, large numbers of workers, mostly women, were engaged on temporary basis. They were apparently not satisfied working on temporary basis for long number of years. Employees of all the units of BPL Engineering Ltd. formed a common trade union. Thereafter, they applied for registration of the Union. Management of BPL opposed the registration. The Union was still registered and management filed an appeal against the said order of registration with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, in which show cause notice was issued to the Union. However, on challenge being raised by the Union to the said show cause notice by filing a petition, purportedly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, was pleased to quash the said show cause notice. Thus, the registered Union of BPL and its employees affiliated to CITU came into existence.
4.The registered Trade Union, thus, as was expected, placed charter of demands before the management for regularization of all temporary employees who had been working for long number of years. As the prayer of the Union was not acceded to by the BPL management, the members of the Union held Dharnas, protests and meetings, outside factory premises at different units of BPL. It is on record that A1 R. Srinivas and A2 T.K.S. Kutti were the President and Secretary respectively of the said Union and A3 to A47 and other accused were said to be active members of the said Union. According to prosecution, they had been actively participating in the activities of the Union, making demands, which the BPL management did not accede to.
5.Since the initial demands made by members of the Union were not acceded to, and did not bring required results for the Union, they adopted hostile tactics in their activities.
6.On 19.11.1998, there was serious protest demonstration by the leaders, office bearers and other active members of Union, persuading employees not to attend to the work at BPL’s Basavapura Unit. This led to lodging of complaint/FIR by Lalitha, an employee of BPL with Hebbagodi Police Station, bringing aforesaid facts to the notice of police. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed against accused A6, A15, A33 and A36, on the complaint filed by Lalitha. There were as many as three lady accused also named in the said complaint.
7.However, some of the employees who were loyal to the management continued to attend work.
8.Sensing the gravity of the situation, BPL management thought it fit and proper to take help of police so as to provide sufficient protection to its loyal employees and to escort them to and from their respective residences to different units of BPL. On the basis of the complaint having been lodged by Lalitha, BPL management also lodged a complaint against A6, A15, A33 and A36 and A47.
9.Protest demonstration by the members of Union of BPL either within the premises or outside different units continued. Since despite doing their best, BPL was not able to control and manage hostile attitude of the Union, it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
