MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, against the order dated February 14, 1995 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 20/8.4 (98/82) and 34/84 dismissing the appeal and maintaining conviction and sentence dated November 8, 1982 of Special Judicial Magistrate Alwar in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1980 under Section 4(v) of Prosecution of Civil Rights and sentenced them to 2 -1/2 months Sl and fine of Rs. 100 each and in default of payment to further undergo sentence of 15 days SI and under Section 7(d) of Protection of Civil Rights and sentenced them to 2 -1/2 month Sl and fine of Rs. 100 each and in default of payment to further undergo sentence of 15 days SI. It may be mentioned that petitioners Chaju Singh, Hamath Singh, Lal Bai, Sunder Bai and Mool Chand have died. The revision petition by these five petitioners have become infructious and stand dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that for the alleged Incident took place in the month of March 1979 a complaint was submitted by Chhotey Lal to Superintendent of Police Alwar which was sent to SHO Police Station Malakheda. In the complaint it was alleged that on March 1, 1979 at 10.00' there was a Nikasi of Laxman son of Budharam Jatav. He was going on mare (Ghodi) in the village and when he reached in the area of these persons then his Nikasi' was stopped. They abused Laxman and told that why he is taking the procession on the 'Mare' (Ghodi) and they reached there to push them on the ground and gave beating so that he may not take the procession in his village again. They also told to put fire in their house and removed them from the village. Due to the fear, the procession was taken put side the village. At 10.00 P.M. The Ladies were singing the song then some miscreants abused them and threw stones. On march 2, 1979 Kishan Payari took the animals on the well then Chaju Singh abused and gave blow by 'Danda' to the animals pushed Kishan Payari. On March 3, 1979 after returning of the 'Barat' and after some time, Suwa took animals on the well then Chaju Singh did not allow the animals to drink water and behaved with Suwa in the same manner as he behaved with Kishan Payari. On March 4, 1979 these persons gave beating to Thavariya and pushed him on the ground. It was mentioned that these persons have organised gang and doing meeting. It was mentioned that these persons are telling to remove their party from the village and to put fire in their houses. They are also not allowing the animals to drink water and they are trying to commit the sexual offence. The Police on the basis of this report, registered the case under Section 341 IPC and under Sections 4 and 7(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. The Police after investigation submitted challan against the accused petitioners. The trial court framed charges under various provisions of law against the accused petitioners. The trial Court framed charges under various provisions of law against the accused petitioners and the accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced some documents to prove Its case. In defence some witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. The trial court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Sections 4 and 7(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act vide judgment dated November 8, 1982. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the accused petitioners preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar. The appellate court after hearing both the parties vide judgment dated Feb. 14, 1995 maintained the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of offences as mentioned above. Against this order of Addl. Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the accused petitioners submitted following submissions: (a) The courts below have failed to appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses as per law. The Statements of PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 3, PW. 4, PW. 5, PW. 6, PW. 7, PW. 8, PW. 9, PW. 12, PW. 13, PW. 14 and PW. 19 go to show that no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of these witnesses. They have made improvements, contradictions and omissions in their testimonies. (b) From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that there is no evidence to convict the accused petitioners under Section 147 IPC. (c) The courts below have not considered the provisions of Section 4 and 7(d) of the protection of Civil Rights Act. (d) The courts below have not considered this aspect of the case property that the FIR is a delayed one and it has been lodged after a great delay. There is no explanation coming forthwith to show that why the FIR is not lodged immediately after the occurrence. The material available on record, clearly goes to show that FIR is a concocted one and it was lodged after a great delay. (e) All the witnesses are interested one. This fact is clear from the statement of these witnesses. Thus it was the duty of the courts below to scrutinise the statements of the witnesses very carefully with caution. (f) There is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 235 Cr.P.C. The accused petitioners were not heard on the point of sentence as required under this provision of law. (g) The matter was compromised which is clear from compromise dated April 2, 1985 also filed as Annexure 2 along with the revision petition. The compromise deed was submitted and the courts below failed to appreciate this compromised deed, which is clear from the impugned judgment. (h) The trial court has not given any reason for not extending the provisions of sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. No doubt the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable in the case but still the provisions of Section 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. has not been debarred.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Srimal, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor averred that the courts below have considered all the material and evidence available on record and there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial courts in convicting the accused petitioners for the offences under Section 4 and 7(d) of the Civil Rights Protection Act. I have gone through the order passed by the trial courts. The matter has been compromised between the parties vide a compromise deed dated April 2, 1985 and the courts below have failed to appreciate this compromise deed. The courts below have not extended benefit of Section 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioners. Thus the judgment of both the courts below deserve to be set aside.;