Hegde, J. - (1.) In these appeals by special leave, we are only concerned with the question of sentence. The respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1967 are not represented though they were served with the notice of the appeal.
(2.) The question of sentence in this case has assumed considerable importance. In order to assess that question, it is necessary to refer to the incidents that led up to the prosecution of the respondents. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted in case No. 254 of 1964 in the court of Sessions for Greater Bombay. They were charged with various offences. These respondents were members of a Union known as B. E. S.T. Union. In about the middle of August of 1963, that Union declared a strike. B. E. S. T. is running bus services in the city of Bombay. As a result of the declaration of the strike several workers struck work. It appears that some of the workers disregarded the call for strike and continued to work. On the third day of the strike when a single decker bus No. BMR 3561 was proceeding on the road, the respondents and others stopped the bus and the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1967 threw burning petrol on the conductor, Abdul Kadar as a result of which Abdul Kadar sustained several severe injuries. His face was partially burnt up. At the time of the on occurrence one of the respondents caused grievous hurt to the driver, Kamalashankar Mishra. During the course of the incident, injuries were also caused to police constable Namdeo Arjun Kharat who was on bandobast duty in the bus. Injuries sustained by the conductor and the driver were quite serious. The conductor sustained burns on the face, left ear and in the arms and he had to be in the hospital for over 20 days. The driver's left ear was cut and the flap of the ear was hanging. Further there was a fracture of cartilage.
(3.) The learned trial judge summarised the prosecution case thus: "The miscreants had invaded the bus from both the sides:some came from the front side and some from the rear near the entrance. They were not bona fide passengers. Though they rushed near the entrance they did not enter the bus but engaged the conductor in talking. Accused No. 2 was one of the persons invading the bus from the front. He tampered with the machine which stopped and the bus could not start. Some of them had assaulted the driver and accused No.1 had thrown the container with the burning petrol into the bus which clearly shows that the common object of the offenders was to break down the bus service, run and operated by the loyal servants and to intimidate them by acts of violence and causing damage and destruction by fire to the vehicle. It is clear that on the rear side there were accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and others. On the front side there were accused No. 2 and two others, who had assaulted the driver . . . .";