Appeal No 4488 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 8491 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 749 of 1990
R Mohan for the Appellant
FSNanman Kailash Vasudev Ms Alpana Kitpal and MJPaul for the Respondents
The following order of the Court was delivered K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J Leave granted
When we are moving forward to achieve the constitutional guarantee of equal rights for women the life Insurance Corporation of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo
The case on hand illustrates this typical atti tude of the Corporation
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India the Corporation
She was called for written test and also for interview
She was successful in both the tests
She was asked to fill a decla ration form which she did and submitted to the Corporation on 25 May 1989
On the same day she was also examined by a lady doctor and found medically fit for the job
The Doctor who examined the petitioner was in the approved panel of the Corporation
The petitioner was directed to undergo a short term training programme
After successful completion of the training she was given an appointment letter dated 25 Sep tember 1989
She was appointed as Assistant in the Corpora tion
She was put on probation for a period of 6 months
She was entitled to be confirmed in the service subject to satisfactory work report
The petitioner took leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990
In fact she applied for maternity leave on 27 December 1989 followed by medical certificate dated 6 Janu ary
She was admitted to the Nursing Home of Dr Hira Lal on 10 January 1990
She delivered a full term baby on 11 January 1990
She was discharged from Nursing Home on 19 January 1990
On 13 February 1990 the petitioner was discharged from the serv 149 ice
It was during the period of her probation
It would appear from the order of discharge that no ground was as signed in it and it seems to be a discharge simplicitor
The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging that order on the ground that it was not a discharge simplicitor but based on some discrepan cy in the declaration made by her before joining the serv ice
The Corporation in the counter resisted the case stat ing that the petitioner s work was not satisfactory and as such under the terms of the appointment she was discharged without notice and without assigning any reason
The High Court refused to interfere with the termination
The High Court observed that the Petitioner s work during the period of probation was found to be not satisfactory
The petitioner has now appealed to this Court
When the appeal was listed for preliminary hearing this Court issued notice for final disposal and made an order as follows The facts of the case compel us to issue an interim mandamus directing the respondents to put the petitioner back to service and we accordingly issue a direction to the respond ent to reinstate the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order
 The Corporation upon service has filed the counter seeking to justify the termination of the petitioner s services
It has been stated that the Corporation discharged the service of the petitioner while she was still a proba tioner
At the time of discontinuing her services as a probationer no reasons were given and it was an order of discharge simplicitor
No stigma was imputed to the peti tioner
The petitioner was on leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990
The petitioner had deliberately withheld to mention the fact of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration form before medical examina tion for fitness
The petitioner concealed the fact of her being in the family way
this was revealed later when she informed the Corporation that she had given birth to a daughter
The Corporation also made reference to the terms of the declaration as filled in by the petitioner on 25 May 1989 6
To be filled in by female candidates only in the presence of the Medical examiner a Are you married Yes
b If so please state 150 i Your Husband s Name in full  occupation Mr PRADEEP MATHUR Law Officer Central Pollution Control Board Nehru Place New Delhi
ii State the number of children if any and their present ages One daughter 1 year and 6 months
iii Have the menstrual periods always been regular and painless and are they so now  Yes
iv How many conceptions have taken place How many have gone full term One
v State the date of last menstruation  29th April 1989
vi Are you pregnant now 
No vii State the date of last delivery 14th November 1987
viii Have you had any abortion or miscarriage 
No It was further alleged in the counter affidavit that the declaration given by the petitioner was false to the knowl edge of the petitioner inasmuch as as per her own averment she had delivered a full term baby on 11 January 1990
The petitioner to her own knowledge could not have had a men struation cycle on 29 April 1989 as stated by her in the declaration on 25 May 1989
Dr SK Gupta MD of Dr Hira Lal Child  Maternity Home where the petitioner was admit ted for delivery has certified that the petitioner had LMP on 3 April 1989
A copy of the certificate of Dr Hira Lal has also been produced as Annexure to the Counter Affidavit
It was asserted that the petitioner had deliberately given in her declaration to the Corporation wrong date of menstru ation as 29 April 1989 and she had given her correct date of LMP as 3 April 1989 to Dr SK Gupta
If she had mentioned the correct date of her menstruation in her declaration her appointment would have been deferred as per rules
It was also contended that the decision to discharge the petitioner from the service of the Corporation was on 2 grounds 1 because of a false declaration given by her at the very initial stage of her service and 2 her work during the period of probation was not satisfactory
Reference was also made to the Instruction 16 issued by the Corporation as to the Medical examination for recruit ment of Class 1II and Class IV staff
Clause 16 of the Instructions reads as trader 16
MEDICAL EXAMINATION  No person shall be appointed to the services of the Corporation unless heshe has been certified to be of sound constitu 151 tion and medically fit for discharging hisher duties
The certificates in the form given in Annexure IX should be from a doctor duly authorized for the purpose by the Appointing Authority
If at the time of medical examina tion any lady applicant is found to be preg nant her appointment to the Corporation shall be considered three months after the delivery
This would be subject to a further medical examination at the candidate s cost and sub ject to the ranking list continuing to be valid
 We have examined the matter carefully
We have nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner s work during the period of probation was not satisfactory
Indeed the reason for termination seems to be different
It was the declara tion given by her at the stage of entering the service
It is said that she gave a false declaration regarding the last menstruation period with a view to suppress her pregnancy
It seems to us that the petitioner cannot be blamed in this case
She was medically examined by the Doctor who was in the panel approved by the Corporation
She was found medically fit to join the post
The real mischief though unintended is about the nature of the declaration required from a lady candidate
The particulars to be furnished under columns iii to viii in the declaration are indeed embar rassing if not humilating
The modesty and self respect may perhaps preclude the disclosure of such personal problems like whether her menstrual period is regular or painless the number of conceptions taken place how many have gone full term etc
The Corporation would do well to delete such columns in the declaration
If the purpose of the declara tion is to deny the maternity leave and benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of entering the serv ice the legality of which we express no opinion since not challenged the Corporation could subject her to medical examination including the pregnancy test
In the circumstances the interim order already issued is made absolute
We however direct that the appellant is not entitled to the salary from the date of discharge till her reinstatement
With this direction the appeal stands dis posed of but no order as to costs
SB Appeal allowed


Summary:
A litigation regarding possession of a certain plot of land was pending in the civil court between the complainants and the accused persons
On 16121975 at about 8 am the accused armed with fire arms and sharp edged weapons reached the outer house of the complainants and attacked them
According to the prosecution case accused No 4 who was unarmed raised an exhortation challenging deceased 1l and caught hold of his long hair while accused 1 fired a rifle shot at him and accused No7 gave two successive gandasa blows on his head
Accused No9 fired a shot at PW 15
Accused nos6 and 8 fired one shot each at deceased 2 who also succumbed to his injuries
PW 16 was fired at by accused No 2 hitting him at the left arm and flank
Accused No 3 and 5 gave blows from the reverse side of gandasa and spear to PW 17 and another woman respectively
On the side of the accused a spear blow of accused No 5 accidently his accused No 9 and a shot fired by accused No 6 accidently hit another man on the side of the accused who later on died
Besides the members of the complainant s family the neighbours PWs 18  19 also witnessed the occurrence
The accused were alleged to have run away taking a rifle and revolver belonging to the complainants
The police investi gation culminated in the trial of the 9 accused
576 The Trial Court acquitted four accused nos1 and 3 to 5  but convicted the appellants accused nos
2 and 6 to 9 of offences punishable under sections 148 149 302 302149 307 and 307149 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment
The appeal filed by the appellant having been dis missed by the High Court an appeal by special leave to this Court was filed
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the four accused having been acquitted despite the eye witnesses deposing to their participation in the alleged incident no credence should be given to the prosecution witnesses in order to maintain the convic tion and that the prosecution failed to explain the way the injuries were caused to the persons on the accused side
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
The large number of participants in the occurrence would at some place or the other leave a place for entertaining some doubt
But in the instant case the prosecution case as a whole remained strong supparted as it was by the independent evidence of PWs18 and 19 the neighhours
The occurrence took place in the Courtyard of the outer house of the complainant party
Blood stained earth was collected from four places therein during investi gation
In the totality of circumstances it cannot be said that the maximfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus was attracted
583 H 584AC 2
Exhortation is necessarily not a padding or over doing and has to be viewed in the correct perspective in the facts and circumstances of each case
582E In the instant case the roles assigned to accused No 4 who was acquitted that he gave an exhortation caught hold of the long hair of deceased 1 and carried away his rifle after the incident were according to the Sessions Judge part of the overdoing
The fact that the rifle was being carried by the accused at the time of his arrest was considered by him to be abnormal as otherwise in the normal course of events it was expected to have been kept con cealed
The Sessions Judge held that he was not satisfied about the criminality of accused No 4
582 C D 577 Besides the exhortation there were other factors avail able which could lead the Sessions Judge to take the view that he had and that was a possible view which any cautious Judge could have taken
But that per se does not mean that the witnesses who had deposed to the participation of the accused at the time of occurrence have to be dubbed as liars
582 E F Jainul Haque vs State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 45 referred to
31 With respect to acquitted accused No 3 the SeS sions judge held that though PW 17 had received injuries from the reverse side of the gandasa from the accused still in the FIR the use of weapon was mentioned but not the manner in which it was used and that it was normally ex pected of the accused to have given at least one gandasa blow to someone from the sharp side
Besides his taking away the revolver from the victim after the occurrence did not inspire confidence
In the circumstances the act of remov ing the revolver was viewed with suspicion more so when its recovery was made as a result of the disclosure state ment after a span of eight days of the arrest of the ac cused
The view of the Sessions Judge that the case against acquitted accused No 3 did not stand beyond reasonable doubt was a possible view taken on a cautious approach without telling on the veracity of the prosecution witness es
582 G H 583 A B 32 Acquitted accused No 5 was said to have used a spear bluntwise but the concerned victim was not found to have any stab or punctured wound
The recovery of the spear taking place after seven days of arrest of the accused was viewed with suspicion due to the time lag
There was omis sion in the FIR of the specific manner in which the weapon had been used
The finding of benefit of doubt to accused No5 could be given by the Sessions Judge without causing least dent to the prosecution case
Shifting the grain from the chaff does not mean loss of grain and gain of chaff
Such a view of the learned Judge cannot cast a reflection on the case as a whole
583 C E 33 As regards acquitted accused No1 finding the description of the weapon being in discord with the medical evidence the Sessions Judge held the prosecution case not to have been proved against the accused
Even though the Ses sions Judge did not extend the benefit of doubt to the accused in so many words his approach was an exercise in that direction
The acquittal of accused No1 too would cause no affectation to the prosecution case as a whole
589 F G 578 41 The first information report specifically mentioned that the injuries to the persons on the side of the accused were as a result of the doings of accused persons them selves and all the eye witnesses cogently and consistently deposed to that effect
584 B C 42 The time of the occurrence being 800 am and the inmates of the house being busy with their daily chores the complainant party would not anticipate an assault and be ready with fire arms to put them to use
The fact that the licensed weapons of the complainant party were not shown to have been used by itself established that the injuries received by the persons on the side of the accused were accidental and suffered in the man ner as suggested by the prosecution
584 D E