‘Even Death Would Appear As An Alluring Option’: Orissa HC Upholds Conviction Of 6 Contractors For Abducting Labourers, Chopping Their Hands

The Orissa High Court has upheld the order of conviction handed down to six contractors for abducting two workers, forcing them to work for a number of days as bonded labourers and finally chopping their palms from the wrists.

While denying relief to the accused-appellants, the Division Bench of Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash held,

“In the present, we are in seisin over a matter where the bonded labourers are encountered with an absolute barbaric act in the hands of so called labour contractor who not only fooled the labourers and fraudulently took away the money owed to them but also subjected them to the most monstrous act, before which even death would appear as an alluring option.”

Brief Background

The victims and some other labourers in this case were asked by some of the appellants to proceed to Raipur to work in a brick-kiln which would enable them to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. Being lured by such offer, the innocent victims and others accompanied the said appellants to Raipur in a train.

Subsequently, the appellants asked the victims to accompany them to Hyderabad for the said work. Sensing something fishy, the victims along with others denied the proposal. However, the appellants became violent at such denial and threatened them to kill if they do not comply with their orders.

The victims as well as other labourers, thus, boarded the train to Hyderabad out of fear. While they were travelling, almost all the labourers fled away from the clutches of the appellants except the two victims.

After getting knowledge of such fleeing, the appellants forced the victims to get down from the train and took them from place to place and lastly, to Kotamal, where they were kept in the house of one of the accused persons. Three of the appellants assaulted both the victims and demanded a sum of two lakh rupees.

As the victims and their family members failed to arrange the demanded money, the victims were forced to work in the cotton fields of one of the accused persons as bonded labourers for about eight to ten days. Thereafter, both the victims were confined in a room and on one night, they were forcibly taken to a forest where they were asked to give their lives or limbs. But the victims disagreed to do so.

Subsequently, both the victims were caught hold of by some of the accused persons and two of them chopped the right palms of both the victims from their respective wrists. Suffering unbearable pain, both of them screamed at the top of their voice and fled from the spot.

They manage to approach the owner of a hotel who gave them polythenes to wrap their wounds and with the help of some villagers; they boarded a bus and reached the District Headquarter Hospital, Bhawanipatna for treatment.

After being informed about the incident, the police registered a case. Investigation was conducted and the accused persons including the present appellants were charge-sheeted. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh convicted the appellants for commission of different offences under 307/364A/365/342/370/506/420/323/326/201/34 of the IPC and 16/17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.

Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred appeals before the High Court which were tagged together for conjoint hearing.

Court’s Observations

The Court started its judgment by quoting the following observation made by former Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. succinctly explaining the plights of the bonded labourers:

“…the bonded labourers as non-beings, exiles of civilization living a life worse than that of animals, for the animals are at least that of animals, for the animals are at least free to roam about as they like and they can plunder or grab food whenever they are hungry, but these outcastes of society are held in bondage and robbed of their freedom even.”

The Court discarded the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that in course of their cross-examination, the injured witnesses (victims) have given inconsistent and prevaricating replies which cast cloud to their testimonies either with respect to the presence of the appellants or in respect to the truth of the incident.

“We firmly stand by our view as above for the reason that the witnesses are rustic villagers and they cannot be said to have the acumen with regard to the manner of replying to the question put to them by the trained defence counsel so that they could keep their substantive evidence free from doubt since it is held by Apex Court that cross examination is an unequal battle between the skilled lawyer and a naïve or rustic witness. In such an unequal battle it is always probable that a person appearing as a witness, who has no knowledge about the process of the court may fall into traps led by the skilled defence lawyer. In such a case even if the statement of a witness do not come up to the expectation of a judge or a trained lawyer, the same cannot be jettisoned in a mechanical manner.”

Further, the Court held that while appreciating evidence in a case, the socio-economic, cultural and educational backgrounds of the witnesses have to be kept in mind. As in the instant case, there was no evidence to refute the fact that the witnesses were daily wage labourers or persons engaged in cultivation, the Court was of the view that,

“In such an eventuality, it is fallacious to expect that they would either depose or reply in the case being alive to the various intricacies of law which a trained lawyer is versed with. Consequently, the stray reply of the witnesses during the course of their cross examination here and there cannot jettison their version altogether, which is otherwise consistent and cogent.”

The Court was, however, not convinced that the labourers were abducted to obtain ransom. Therefore, while altering the charge to one under Section 367 of the IPC (Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.), it held:

“The above conclusion of the learned trial court is somewhat irreconcilable vis-à-vis the prosecution evidence. While it is tell tale clear from the evidence that the entire episode started with the purpose to see the migration of labour for getting engaged as bonded labourer, the act alleged as regards demand of ransom and chopping of the hands have no nexus with the demand of money.”

The Bench took into consideration the fact that one of the accused persons gave statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, basing upon which the weapon of offence and the ‘amputated wrists’ of the victims were recovered. It also noted the medical finding that such wounds caused to the victims would have been fatal had those not been attended timely.

“The weapon used as proved vide M.O II, the place chosen where the hands were chopped thereby depriving an immediate attention of anyone to come to their rescue was all conspired and so planned that the injured could not but to suffer and succumb to the injuries. Further, severing of the wrist from rest of the body are tacit to deduce an active knowledge of the Appellant that such injury is likely to cause death, are the acts not only of gruesome nature but diabolic and dreadful than the death of a human being. In true sense it is barbaric,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Section 364A was modified one under Section 367 and their conviction under Sections 323/342/326/307/420/120B and U/s 201/34 IPC were also upheld.

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Mithun Das, Advocate; Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate; Ms. Gayatri Patra, Amicus Curiae

Counsel for the State: Mr. Sonak Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 105

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2724 of 2021

Case Title – Dolby Builders Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment