In a landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court has confirmed the conviction of six contractors found guilty of abducting two workers, forcing them into bonded labour, and subsequently committing the heinous act of severing their palms from their wrists. Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, while delivering the judgment, remarked,
“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.”
The case’s background reveals that the victims, along with other labourers, were lured by the appellants with a promise of a monthly wage of Rs. 20,000/- for work in a brick-kiln in Raipur. However, upon their arrival, the appellants tried to redirect them to Hyderabad. Sensing malicious intent, most labourers declined the offer and managed to escape, leaving only the two victims in the hands of the appellants.
These victims were subsequently assaulted, forced into bonded labour, and eventually taken to a forest where their palms were brutally chopped off. Despite their grievous injuries, they managed to find help and received treatment at the District Headquarter Hospital, Bhawanipatna.
The court began its judgment by referencing a poignant description of the plight of bonded labourers from former Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. Dismissing the defense’s arguments about inconsistencies in the victims’ testimonies, the court stated,
“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.”
The court emphasized the socio-economic backgrounds of the witnesses, asserting their testimonies were consistent and cogent. It also modified the charge under Section 364A to Section 367 of the IPC, noting the act of chopping the victims’ hands had no nexus with a ransom demand.
Highlighting the severity of the crime, the court observed,
“The weapon used… the place chosen where the hands were chopped… was all conspired and so planned that the injured could not but suffer and succumb to the injuries. In true sense, it is barbaric.”
The judgment upheld the conviction of the appellants under various sections of the IPC, serving as a stark reminder of the grave injustices faced by bonded labourers and the imperative for stringent legal action against their exploiters.
