M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) EACH of the eleven accused petitioners was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under his judgment dated 13th June 1985 u/s 147, 323/149 IPC as well as under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (for short P. C. R. Act ). Under first count each of them was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Under second count each of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month simple imprisonment and so far as third and last count under Section 4 of the P. C. R. Act is concerned, the accused petitioners were sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. EACH of them had also been convicted u/s. 4 (2) of the same Act read with Section 7 (d) and had been sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were sentenced to run concurrently.
(2.) THE accused petitioners and one Prabhu S/o Har Sahai preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. THE learned Sessions Judge under his judgment dated 21. 05. 1987 dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioners but allowed that of Prabhu. The facts of this case will go to show that even after independence of more than 40 years, there is not much improvement in the rural areas of this part of the country and persons belonging to higher castes, as they are known, view with contempt the persons belonging to the lower castes including those of. scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and do not allow them to discharge their social obligations in accordance with their customs. Chandu by caste Balai, a member belonging to scheduled caste was having a daughter by name Vimla of marriageable age. Her marriage had been settled with one Banwari Lal PW 7 of village Poopri. The marriage was to be celebrated on 28. 06. 1979 and the marriage party consisting of bride-groom Banwari Lal PW 7, Suraj PW 11 and others had come to village Tulsipura. At about 6. 00 p. m. the marriage party had just arrived in the village and outside the village arrangements were made to provide tea and refreshment to them. After the aforesaid tea and refreshment when the marriage party was going in a procession of the bride-groom riding a mare, towards the house of Chandu PW 12 father of Vimla, it is alleged that some of the accused- petitioners called them and said that they will not tolerate the bride-groom belonging to Schedule caste riding a mare and going in a marriage procession through the village. They warned, if the marriage procession proceeds as aforesaid, there is likely to be blood-shed. It is alleged that the members of the marriage party did not pay any heed and the accused persons numbering 30-40 appeared with lathis and caused injuries to the members of the marriage party. As a result of this the members of the marriage party ran away for their lives from the village and it was only on the next day i. e. on 29th June 1979 with the help of the police the marriage of Banwari Lal PW 7 with Vimla D/o Chandu could be celebrated. A report of the incident Ex. P. l was lodged by Matadeen in police station Pragpura and a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. The report had been lodged in night intervening of 28th and 29th June 1979 at about 2. 00 a. m. The injuries of the injured persons Matadeen, Chitarram, Surjaram, Pooranchand, Moolchand, Surjaram s/o Bhagnaram, Jawahar, Panna, Kanhaiyalal, Narain and Chandram were examined by Dr. Ravi Dutt Sharma PW 14 and on examining them, the doctor found that Matadeen had received one abrasion, Chittar had received as many as three injuries including lacerated wound on his head, Surjaram had received one injury, Pooran Chand had received as many as three injuries, Mool Chand had received one injury, Surjaram S/o Bhagnaram had received one injury bruise, Jawahar had received as many as six injuries, Panna had received two injuries, Kanhaiyalal had received two injuries, Narain had received two injuries and Chander Ram had received as many as two injuries respectively, all by blunt weapon and simple in nature. Each of the accused petitioner along with seven others were tried and the learned trial court convicted 12 accused persons including 11 accused petitioners and others were acquitted and some of them have died during the pendency of the trial. The appellate court maintained the conviction and sentence so far as 11 accused petitioners are concerned and one Prabhu was acquitted as stated earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to challenge the findings of the court below and it was contended by him that some of the accused-petitioners are aged about 70 years and, therefore, this court should even if this court dismisses the revision petition release them on sentence already undergone by them though the sentence already undergone is less than minimum prescribed u/s 4 and 7 of the P. C. R. Act.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the record of the case as well as the judgments of the courts below, there can be no dispute that the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. It took place when the marriage party of Banwari Lal had come to the village for celebration of the marriage with Vimla D/o Chandu PW 12. It took place when Banwari Lal PW 7 was riding a mare and was going in a procession for marriage as per custom of the community. The accused petitioners and others had first asked the father of Banwari Lal and others that they will not tolerate a member of the scheduled caste riding a mare and going in a procession through the village and when the members of the marriage party refused to pay any heed, the injuries were caused to the above mentioned persons by the accused petitioners and the marriage could not be performed on that day as all the members of the marriage party had to run away for safety from the place of occurrence. The marriage could only be celebrated on the next day with the help of the police. A look at the statement of Gheesalal PW 16 head-constable will show that on learning that in village Tulsipura a marriage party of persons belonging to Balai caste had come and the persons belonging to higher caste (Swarn) were quarrelling and there was apprehension of breach of peace, he made ah entry in the general diary and proceeded to the spot. It will appear from his statement that women belonging to Balai caste and many persons were sitting in a Tibera and some were also standing. It will also appear from his statement that it was only on 29th June 1979 that police force was summoned from Jaipur and had arrived and with its help the marriage could be performed. Thus, there can be no doubt that the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution and as held proved by the courts below and such occurrence even after 32 years of independence in my opinion must be viewed seriously and no lenient view should be taken in the matter. The learned trial court has placed reliance on the statement of PW 3 Ramjilal in holding that accused petitioners had actually caused injuries and had taken part in the aforesaid incident. Ramjilal PW 3 is none else but brother of Vimla whose marriage was to take place on that day. He has named all the 11 accused petitioners who were seen along with others. He entreated them not to obstruct the performance of the marriage but they paid no heed. Admittedly, he being the brother of Vimla is the resident of same village and though at the time of the incident he was posted at Delhi, but was visiting the village and was known and should know the names of the accused petitioners. If the courts below have placed reliance on his statement after going through his statement, I find no reason to take a contrary view. ;