Tarachand Sachdeva Vs. the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Ors. (29.03.2010 - JHRHC)

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....that the deceased was not the employee in the mines rather he himself, of his own went to the mines premises for collecting sand and sustained injury because of the fall of heavy stone weighting 10 tones. the commissioner, after considering the facts and circumstances brought on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was working in the mines and the accident took place while the deceased was on duty.4. mr. rejendra prasad, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order mainly on the ground that the claim case was filed after 10 years from the date of accident and the commissioner condoned the delay without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant learned counsel further submitted that in the criminal case, appellant was acquitted on the ground that relationship of employer and employee was not proved.5. so far judgment of acquittal is concerned, from perusal of it, we found that the judgment of acquittal was passed on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the offence committed by the accused persons. the criminal court has not recorded a conclusive finding that the deceased was not the employee and was working in the mines. in our view, therefore, the judgment of criminal court will not in any way prejudice the case of the claimant6. so far, delay in filing the claim case is concerned, certainly the commissioner has committed error in condoning the delay without giving notice of hearing to the appellant but if the award is set aside on that ground, that will cause serious hardship on the part of the claimant, inasmuch as the accident took place in the year 1985 but the compensation has not been paid to the claimant till date.7. for the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. however, it is made clear that the claimants/respondents shall be entitled for the compensation awarded by the commissioner. the claimants/respondents shall not be.....