The Delhi High Court has observed that labourers in the country are “least paid and cared” for and that society has failed to value and respect their physical labour.
The high court’s observations came while deciding a man’s appeal challenging his conviction and five-year sentence for assaulting a labourer when he objected to the nuisance created by the convict and others while he was trying to sleep.
It modified the conviction of convict Veer Pal from the offence of attempt to murder to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, holding the requisite intention or knowledge to attract the former was not established in the facts of the case.
The court also modified the five-year jail term to three years’ imprisonment.
“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,” Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav said in its judgment passed on September 18.
The court said it is “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 incident took place on the night of March 17, 2002 when victim Rajinder Kumar was about to sleep or was sleeping in the verandah of a shop at Lajpat Rai market in Chandni Chowk where he was employed.
The nuisance created by Pal and others disturbed the victim who requested them to desist from such behaviour. However, this infuriated the convict who pushed the victim and attacked him with a sharp weapon. A rapi (an instrument used by cobblers to cut leather) was used by the convict to cause injury to the victim, the court noted.
The commotion was brought to the attention of a policeman who was patrolling. While the victim was taken to a hospital, the convict was brought to the police station and a case was registered against him for the alleged offence of attempt to murder.
Pal was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by a trial court.
Challenging the trial court’s verdict, Pal contended the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and that there was no premeditation or planning. He claimed that only a single blow had been given and that Kumar was not the intended target of his anger.
The high court, in its verdict, 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.
While considering modifying the sentence, the high court noted that the incident dated back to 2002 and there was nothing on record showing questionable antecedents of Pal or any subsequent involvement after the case.
