Delhi High Court Highlights Poor Pay, Neglect Of Labourers; Says Society Has Failed To Value Their Work
The Delhi High Court has observed that the society has failed to value and respect physical labour as labourers in the country are “least paid, least cared and least bothered.” Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observations while dealing with an appeal arising from a 2002 assault on a labourer who was sleeping at a shop in city's Lajpat Rai Market.The Court modified the appellant- Veer...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the society has failed to value and respect physical labour as labourers in the country are “least paid, least cared and least bothered.”
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observations while dealing with an appeal arising from a 2002 assault on a labourer who was sleeping at a shop in city's Lajpat Rai Market.
The Court modified the appellant- Veer Pal's conviction from attempt to murder under Section 307 of IPC to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC, holding that the requisite intention or knowledge to attract the former was not established in the facts of the case.
While doing so, the Court said:
“A back breaking hard day's labour requires a sound peaceful sleep in the night to rejuvenate the body in order to enable it to assume and discharge next day's assignments which invariably involves hard physical work.”
“This has become a regular and unending plight of the labourers in the country and to add salt to the injury, this class is least paid, least cared and least bothered. A very pathetic state of affairs where the society has failed to value and respect the physical labour, contrary to the western world, where the physical labour is adequately compensated and valued.”
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Pal against his conviction for attacking one Rajinder Kumar, who was employed at a shop in Lajpat Rai Market.
The incident took place on March 17, 2002, when Rajinder was about to sleep, or was sleeping, in the verandah of the shop after a day of physical labour.
The police alleged that Pal and some other persons were involved in a quarrel which disturbed Rajinder. When Rajinder asked them to desist from creating a disturbance, Pal pushed him and attacked him with a rapi, an instrument used by cobblers to cut leather.
The attack caused an incised wound extending from Pal's upper left cheek to the sternal notch, involving the left anterior aspect of his neck. A police constable who noticed the commotion apprehended Pal while Kumar was taken to the Trauma Centre.
The trial court had convicted Pal for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000.
In appeal, Pal argued that the incident had occurred in the spur of the moment and that there was no premeditation or planning. It was also submitted that only a single blow had been given and that Kumar was not the intended target of the appellant's anger.
Justice Yada. examined the principles governing the offence of attempt to murder and said that the crucial question was whether Pal had the intention or knowledge necessary for an act to amount to attempt to murder.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court noted that such intention has to be gathered from the overall circumstances, including the nature of the weapon, manner in which it was used, motive, severity of the blow and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted.
The Court noted that an injury capable of causing death is not essential for attracting Section 307 of IPC and what is required is the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act in execution of that intention.
Applying the said principles, the Court noted that Pal and Kumar had no connection with each other and were not fighting or quarrelling with each other.
It noted that Kumar had intervened only because the quarrel involving Pal and others was disturbing his sleep.
“The circumstances reflect that the Appellant and victim had no connection with each other, they were not fighting or quarrelling with each other,” the Court observed.
It observed that although the weapon used was dangerous and could have been fatal, it was used in a vertical manner and was not used to stab the victim. Had it been used for stabbing, there could have been a possibility of the injury resulting in grievous hurt, the Court added.
The Court also pointed out that while the injury could be described as grievous in medical terminology, it did not fall within the definition of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of IPC.
“In view of these facts, the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the offence under Section 307 IPC,” the Court held, finding that the requisite intention or knowledge was absent.
Accordingly, the Court modified Pal's conviction from Section 307 of IPC to Section 324 of the Code.
On the question of sentence, the Court noted that the incident dated back to 2002 and that there was nothing on record showing questionable antecedents of Pal or any subsequent involvement after the case.
The Court therefore sentenced him to three years' incarceration, while keeping the fine unchanged. It also directed that he would be entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of CrPC.
Title: VEER PAL v. STATE