' MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.--- Rustam Sohrab Cycle Factory is situate on Lahore-Sheikhupura Road at a distance of two kilometres from Police Station Shandara and works in three shifts. The majority of the worker is engaged in the morning shift.
2. The relations between the management and the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Factory were strained. Some months before the present occurrence (which took place on 20-4-1986)
Muhammad Saleem, Supervisor of the Factory, was injured by the workers and he ultimately died.
The case registered against his assailants was converted to one under section 302, P.P.C. On 15/16- 4-1986 there was another occurrence in which Major Abdul Rashid, the Security Officer of the Factory (P.W.1), Muhammad Munir Beg, Production Manager (P.W.4) and Muhammad Jamil Foreman were injured by the workers on the instigation of the office-bearers of the labor union. This was reported fo the police. As a result of this latter occurrence the management suspended fifteen workers on 19-4-1986. The list of the suspended workers was hung outside the Factory gate as well as inside the Factory premises and instructions issued that none of them was to be allowed entry inside the Factory. However, the suspended workers gathered at the Factory Gate alongwith the office-bearers of the C.B.A. (Union) namely, Altaf Hussain the President, Mumtaz Ahmad, the Vice- President and Maulvi Manzoor Ahmad, the General Secretary. They started abusing the management and inciting the workers inside the Factory to damage the same and enter upon violence, as a result of which there was large scale rioting in the factory. The workers who had entered the factory picked up iron bars and acid bottles and attacked Wasim Umer, Executive Officer, the complainant (not produced having left the country) and other officers. Wasim Umer was caused serious injuries with iron bars and acid was also thrown upon him resulting in serious burns. He was thrown on the ground from the gallery which gave way and thereupon the above- mentioned three office-bearers of the Union and the suspended workers also entered the Factory and joined the rioting.
3. Twenty-nine prosecution witnesses including Wasim Umer complainant were injured. So were Bashir Ahmad and Iqbal Hussain (the accused acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.) and Pervez Akhtar appellant. The injured witnesses were taken to Mayo Hospital where they were attended to and examined by Dr. Farhat Ahmad (P.W.5), Dr. Kaukab Akbar (P.W.6) and Dr. Mushtaq, whose reports have been proved by Dispenser Noor Muhammad (P.W.7). The injured witnesses, according to the medical evidence, had extensive acid burns (injuries by chemical substance) as well as blunt weapon injuries. From the accused side Pervez Akhtar appellant had two acid burns and one blunt weapon injury while Iqbal Hussain and Bashir Ahmad (the acquitted accused) had only one blunt weapon simple injury each.
4. From the evidence led at the trial it is clear that the following workers had been suspended and their entry banned in the Factory-- {{TABLE TEXT}} (1)
(2)
(3)
Pervez Akhtar Shahid Hussain Murad Ali Faryad All Tariq Mahmood Shah Appellants Abdullah } Mubashar Muhammad Javed Muhammad Sarwar Issued notice in Criminal Appeal No,156 of 1988.
Ahmad All Ramzan acquitted.
Liaqat Ali Amir All Not challaned Muhammad Akbar Amanat {{TABLE TEXT}} ' It is also an admitted fact on the record that Altaf Hussain, Maulvi Manzoor Ahmad appellants and Mumtaz Ahmad respondents were respectively the President, the General Secretary and the Vice- President of the lab our union.
5. Of the injured P.Ws. Only Major Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Ismail, Daulat Khan and Muhammad Munir Baig (P.Ws.1 to 4) have been produced at the trial. Major Rashid was the Security Officer and Muhammad Ismail and Daulat Khan, the Watchmen/Gate-Keepers. Wasim Umer complainant was given up as he was not available having left the country. The other witnesses were given up as having been won over. Out of these, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas and Ghaus Muhammad (D.Ws.
2, 3 and 4) were produced in defence.
6. The statement of Wasim Umcr (Exh.P.R.) was recorded by Munir Hussain Shah A.S.I. (P.W.8) in Mayo Hospital, Lahore, at 12 noon, on the day of occurrence, i,e, 20-4-1986. It was sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.R./1) was registered by Muhammad Aslam, Moharrir Head Constable, at 1-00 p.m. Fifty-two persons were challenged to the Court. The case was pending in the Court of the Magistrate when it was transferred to and tried by Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials Noll., Lahore. Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Hussain accused absented and their case was separated. Twenty-six of the accused were acquitted by the learned Judge under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. There has been no appeal or revision against their acquittal. The case of the remaining twenty-four accused was disposed of vide judgment dated 1-2-1988 as a result of which twelve were convicted and the remaining twelve acquitted. The names of he convicts with the sentences recorded are as under:--
(1) Altaf Hussain, President
(2) Maulvi Manzoor Hussain, General Secretary.
Under section 307/149, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 each; or in default thereof one year's R.I. Each as well as a compensation of Rs,5,000 each; ' Under section 148, P.P.C. Three years' R.I. Each.
' Under section 324/149, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. And a compensation of Rs,1,000 each, on two counts, for injuries to Ismail and Daulat Khan P.Ws.
(3) Haji Muhammad Sharif, (4) Muhammad Javed, (5) Mubashar Ali, (6) Pervaiz Akhtar, (7)
Muhammad Abdullah, (8) Murad All and (9) Shahid Hussain.
' Under section 307/149, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each.
' Under section 324/149, P.P.C. To one ye'ar's R.I. Each on two counts.
' Under section 148, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each.
(10) Tariq Mahmood Shah,. (11) Kaley Khan, (12) Murad.
' Under section 307/149, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each.
' Under section 324/149, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. And fine of Rs,1,000 each.
' Under section 148, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each.
' All the twelve accused were also convicted under section 323/149, P.P.C. And while Altaf Hussain was sentenced to one year's R.I. The others were sentenced to one month's R.I. Each.
' Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor Hussain have filed Criminal Appeal No,143 of 1988 while the other ten convicts have filed Criminal Appeal No,140 of 1988 against their conviction and sentences.
Waseem Umar complainant filed Criminal Revision No,102 of 1988 against the acquittal order and for enhancement of the sentences, but the same was withdrawn in view of the appeal having been filed by the State (Criminal Appeal No,156 of 1988). The State had also filed Criminal Appeal No,157 of 1988 for the enhancement of compensation and sentences to the convicts which were disposed of vide order, dated 20-2-1989. In the State appeal against acquittal (Criminal Appeal No, 156 of 1988) vide order dated 20-2-1989 notices were issued only to Muhammad Sarwar, Ahmad Ali, Manzoor Hussain and Mumtaz Ahmad while against the other eight acquitted accused the same was dismissed. So we have before us Criminal Appeals 140, 143 and 156 of 1988 for final disposal; the former two by the convicts and the latter by the State against the four respondents. It is proposed to dispose of all the three matters by this single judgment.
7. The version given in the F.I.R. (Exh.P.R.) was that for the last many months (before the occurrence) the labour union was extending threats to the Manager and other staff of the Factory. On 15/16-4- 1986, on the instigation of Altaf Hussain, Mumtaz Ahmad and Maulvi Manzoor Ahmad, the President, the Vice-President and the General Secretary of the Union and the labour had assaulted Major Abdul Rashid, the Security Officer, Muhammad Munir Baig, the Production Manager and Muhammad Jamil, the Foreman, but they saved themselves. Legal proceedings with respect to the said incident were in hand. The version proceeds that on the day of occurrence Pervez Akhtar, Shahid Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Murad Ali, Faryad Ali, Amir Ali, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Sarwar, Tariq Mahmood Shah, Ahmad Ali and others were charge-sheeted and suspended. These people along with Bashir etc. (50/60 persons in all) committed rioting in the Factory at 7-40 a.m. They used Sarya and even threw acid bottles as a result of which Ghulam Ghaus, Major Rashid, Irshad, Mullommad Aslam, Karim Bakhsh, Muhammad Asghar, Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Siddique and other workers and employees had been injured. The complainant had been injured, brought out and thrown down the gallery. Even the building, the furniture and other valuable property of the Factory, including the record, had been damaged. All this was done with the connivance and instigation of Altaf Hussain, Mumtaz Ahmad and Maulvi Manzoor Hussain.
8. Munir Hussain, S.I. (P.W.8) was present at Shandara Chowk at 11 a.m. On the day of occurrence where the students had blocked the road. He received the information of the present occurrence over there and reached Mayo Hospital at 11-30 a.m. Many injured persons were present in the hospital and were being medically examined by the doctor. He also learnt that some of the injured were being examined in the office of Surgeon, Medico-legal and he reached there and recorded their statements. He inspected the spot on 21-4-1986 and recovered various articles from the office including the broken pieces of glasses etc. Vide memos. Exhs.PA. To P.Q. He also prepared the site plan (Exh.P.EEE) He challaned the accused to Court.
9. Major Abdul Rashid, Security Officer (P.W.1) has given the motive part of the story -- the background to the present occurrence -- and the eye-witness account. The other three injured witnesses, namely, Muhammad Ismail, Daulat Khan and Muhammad Munir Baig (P.Ws. 2 to 4) have also stated about the part of the occurrence concerning them and some general features of the occurrence. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate learned counsel for Altaf Hussain and Maulvi anzoor Hussain appellants, painstakingly pointed out the following admitted facts in the evidence on both sides:-- ' There was long-standing labour dispute and so litigation in the Labour as well as Criminal Courts between the factory management and the C.BA.; ' Fifteen workers had been suspended a day earlier and their entry into the factory premises had been banned, but in spite of it they entered and took part in the occurrence;
(iii) About thirty persons had been injured out of whom twenty-four had been cited as prosecution witnesses but only three, namely, Major Rashid, Muhammad Ismail and Daulat Khan had been produced while the fourth, i,e, Muhammad Munir Baig (P.W.4) had no acid burn and his injury was only superficial; the rest of the injured witnesses were given up and three of them, i,e, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas and Ghulam Ghous, were produced in defence, out of whom one is not an ordinary worker but belongs to the management;
(iv) Telephone had been installed in the management office. The trouble was brewing up and the management knew about it. The police station was only two kilometres from the spot and the occurrence continued for one and a half/two hours and during all this time the police were not informed;
(v) The statement of the complainant had been recorded in the hospital at 12 noon while the injured P.Ws. Were started being examined at 10-45 a.m. When Major Rashid was brought by the police to the hospital. In the F.I.R. No role had been assigned to Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor as to the actual assault; and (vi)The statement of Major Rashid had been recorded by the police twelve clays after the occurrence (on 2-5-1986) and yet he did not name his actual assailants.
' In view of these admitted facts contention was raised that the F.I.R. Was not prompt, it was the result of preliminary investigation and deliberations and still no actual role was assigned to Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor Hussain appellants, and that even at the trial the injured witnesses had given the part of occurrence concerning each of them and not the whole occurrence. It was also urged that many new recruits had been brought in the work-force of the Factory after the trouble of 15/16th April and they had been relied upon to meet the situation, if any, and for that very reason the police was not informed. In this connection it was further asserted that actually the highhandedness was done by the management itself in which the workers were injured and the office-bearers of the union and their sympathisers, i,e, the appellants, were falsely involved.
10. The four eye-witnesses produced at the trial are injured and they are also the regular employees of the Factory. They are, therefore, the most natural witnesses of the occurrence. Since the incident of 15/16th of April, the trouble was brewing up, so much so that fifteen workers were suspended and three of them, namely, Pervaiz Akhtar appellant, and Bashir Ahmad and Hassan Iqbal, the acquitted accused, are injured. Hence the statements of the eye-witnesses are nothing but the truth that the suspended workers entered the Factory in spite of ban against them in this respect. Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor Hussain appellants, being the President and the General Secretary of the Union, have been named by the four eye-witnesses as the persons who were present outside the factory just before the start of the trouble, inciting the workers to enter upon violence. When Wasim Umer complainant had been thrown from the gallery and it gave way, they all entered from the gallery. From the number of persons injured and in view of the nature of injuries, the conclusion is irresistible that there was large scale rioting in which blunt weapons, iron bars, as stated by the B eye-witnesses and acid (which, as per the statements of the witnesses, was material available in the factory, required for manufacturing process) were used. Had the management recruited Goondas, as claimed, to meet the situation, then some of the suspended workers and the office-bearers of the labour union must have been seriously injured. It is not the case. So, the highhandedness was not on the part of the management, rather the assault was mounted by the suspended workers alongwith the office-bearers and their sympathisers who were inside the factory. Of course the four eye-witnesses stated about the actual part of the occurrence concerning each of them, but on this score no allowance can be extended to the appellants. The argument of the learned Assistant Advocate-General is perfectly correct that had any one of them attempted to give all the details of the whole occurrence, the same would have been rather an unnatural and unbelievable thing. The way the riot developed, it was impossible for the prosecution witnesses to have provided the details of the whole occurrence and each witness could be expected to say what had actually happened to him, or near about him. Of course the lab our dispute between the management and the lab our union was there, but this would not make the four witnesses produced at the trial as inimical and interested against the appellants. In the statements of the P.Ws. To the police the details of the occurrence were also not given, but, as discussed above, the same could not have been given. A large number of persons had been injured and according to the statement of the investigator and the recovery memos Exhs.P.B. And P.E. The telephone of Major Rashid and the telephone exchange had been damaged and so the police or any other law enforcing agency could not be contacted. That seems to be the reason that the police learnt about the occurrence at Shandara Chowk and by that time the injured had been removed to the hospital.
11. The case of Altaf Hussain appellant is that on the day of occurrence he had attended the Labor Court in Muslim Town, Lahore, In this respect, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Wattoo, Ghulam Qadir and Kb.
Tariq Masood, Advocates (D.Ws.1, 5 and 6) deposed that he was present in the Court and had taken tea with them at the time the occurrence took place. The order of the Court (Exh.D.F.) also shows his presence marked. His plea of alibi, however, was not accepted by the learned trial Judge. Maulvi Manzoor Hussain appellant claimed that he was present with Altaf Hussain appellant in the Labour Court. In this respect, he does not get any support from the statement of Altaf Hussain. The learned trial Judge, in para. 14 of his judgment, gave very sound and valid reasons for not believing the defence plea. None of the three Advocates produced by Altaf Hussain appellant or his counsel appeared before the police during investigation or moved any application to any authority before the trial that Altaf Hussain appellant was falsely involved. It was not expected, as observed by the learned trial Judge, that after more than a year the three Advocates would have been remembering that a particular person had taken tea with them on a particular date. The actual counsel for Altaf Hussain has not been produced. He was the most natural witness in this respect.
Muslim Town is not a far away place from Shandara and even after showing one's presence in Labour Court one could have easily reached Shandara by the time of occurrence. The defence plea was rightly rejected.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that even if the participation of Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor Hussian appellants was admitted, still the sentence awarded to them was very disproportionate to the sentence awarded to their co-appellants. There is force in the argument, but at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that they, being the leaders, incited the workers to enter upon violence which resulted in extensive injuries to a large number of people. Both are ascribed acid burns to Major Abdul Rashid P.W. As per the medical evidence, his injuries are extremely serious and if one has to measure the disfiguration of his person, a bare look on his photos P.1-3 before the occurrence and after it would suffice. In the circumstances, while reducing the sentence of Altaf Hussain and Maulvi Manzoor Hussain appellants under section 307/149, P.P.C. To ten years' R.I. Each, we maintain the sentence of fine and compensation thereunder, as ordered by the learned trial Judge. Their appeal (Criminal Appeal No,143 of 1988) is partly allowed, in the above terms. The appeal filed by the other appellants stands dismissed.
13. So far as the State appeal (Criminal Appeal No, 156 of 1988) against Muhammad Sarwar, Ahmad Ali, Manzoor Hussain and Mumtaz Ahmad respondents is concerned, the same must also be dismissed. There were admittedly two accused by the name of Ahmad Ali and the prosecution has failed to point out which of them was suspended and which of them had played the particular part.
Mumtaz respondent, though Vice-President of the union, is not one of the suspended workers. He was observed to have been not named in the F.I.R. By the learned trial Judge, but the observation in this respect is not borne out from the record. He is mentioned in the F.I.R. But his name in the statement of Major Abdul Rashid, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was interpolated and this put the learned trial Judge on caution and guard. We are also inclined to act with the same caution.
Irshad Ahmad, an injured witness, examined before the Magistrate (when the case was pending there) had admitted in cross-examination that in his police statement he had given the ticket number of Muhammad Sarwar accused who threw acid on him as 14002. The ticket number of Muhammad Sarwar respondent is 46971. After examining the police statement of Irshad, the learned trial Judge observed that Muhammad Sarwar with Ticket No,14002 had left the service of Rustam Sohrab Factory. Muhammad Sarwar respondent was a member of the executive body of the labour union and he had explained it his statement at the close of the trial how he was promised promotion if he left the union of Altaf Hussain appellant to which he did not agree. He also seems to have been rightly granted the benefit of doubt. There is also no evidence against Manzoor Hussain respondent son of Sher Muhammad and none has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate-General during arguments. The benefit of doubt to this respondent was, therefore, also correctly extended. The notice issued to them is hereby discharged.