Case: Hardeo Narain Singh Vs. Surajdeo Singh and Others

Ramlakhan Prasad and the Magistrate A. N. Ghosh both ran in the direction from where the gun fire had been shot. The Sub-Inspector gave evidence that he found Dukhan Yadav injured. The Sub-Inspector wrote the First Information Report. Dukhan Yadav supported the F.I.R. and said that the statements contained therein were made by him. The F.I.R. was attested by Rameshwar Mahto and Ramkishun Yadav. Both of them gave evidence. The Sub-Inspector P.W. 46 said that he saw both the appellant and Nagendra Singh on a jeep and that Nagendra Prasad singh was carrying a gun in his hand.13. Dukhan Yadav said that Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun. The appellant and Nagendra Singh asked Dukhan Yadav and others as to where they were going to vote. Dukhan Yadav and others said that they would cast vote for Machhli Chhap (fish symbol). Thereupon the appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot. Dukhan like others started fleeing away from that place. But Dukhan received the pellet injury in his neck.14. The Magistrate A. N. Ghosh P.W. 48 said that he along with his officers was standing in the booth when he heard a gun fire shot. The magistrate and his officers went towards the side from which the gun fire shot had been heard. While going that way the Magistrate saw a jeep and a car. The Magistrate recognised the two persons sitting in the jeep and they were the appellant and Nagendra Singh. The magistrate said that Nagendra Singh was the lawyers at Gaya. The Magistrate also said that he knew both Nagendra Singh and the appellant and that he had seen Nagendra Singh and the appellant before in connection with the election. The Magistrate referred to Exhibit 4 The first Information Report and said that the Sub-Inspector of police recorded the first information report and he put his signatures on Exhibit 4, the first information report.15. P.W. 17 Rameshwar Mahto said that at about 3 or 3.30 p.m. a gun fire was heard and about 100 to 125 persons were standing in a line to cast their votes. Some of them got afraid and fled away. Rameshwar Mahto also said that he saw a jeep and a car coming towards the polling booth. Rameshwar Mahto also said that when the jeep passed near the booth Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh cried out maro maro and the voters got frightened and were scared away.16. P.W. 27 Rambilas Singh said that he was standing in the line for casting his vote when he heard the gun fire. He was confused. The line was broken. Some people fled away. Rambilas saw a jeep coming followed by a taxi or car. The witness saw in the jeep the appellant and Nagendra Singh who had a gun in his hand. Rambilas Singh said that at the sight of the car Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh raised the cry of maro maro and at the cry the witness and the others fled away.17. The evidence of Rameshwar Mahto was criticised on the ground that he was interested and inimical. The High Court rightly answered that criticism by holding that Rameshwar Mahto was the polling agent of Shoshit Dal and not of the election petitioner. Again, the evidence of Rambilas Singh was criticised on the ground that he was not examined as an eye-witness before the investigating officer. It may not always be possible to examine all the witness before the investigating officer.18. Nagendra Singh said that he had gone to Kayeea in the company of the appellant. He also saw the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector of police. He heard the cry of maro maro. He however could not ascertain till the day of his deposition as to who had fired the gun.19. The appellants also said that he had gone to Kayeea in the company of Nagendra Singh and that both of them were in a jeep.20. There was some common place comment at the trial about the witnesses namely that they were inimical or partisan or they were not consistent about the time of the occurrence. Mr. Gupta however did not rely on such comments on the evidence. He put it quite surely that it was really a question as to belief of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner.21. The broad and basic features of the petitioners case have been established beyond doubt.22. The first Information Report Exhibit 4 was recorded at 4.15 p.m. on February 9, 1969. It was really the most contemporaneous documentary evidence which supported the case of the election petitioner. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that Dukhan Yadav manufactured a case against the appellant. The appellant and Nagendra Singh were together. Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun. The appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot. Nagendra Singh fired the gun. Dukhan Yadav received a pellet injury from that gun shot. Many voters were waiting in a queue to cast their vote. The gun shot and the cry of maro-maro raised by Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh scared away the voters. The report of the Presiding Officer also indicates that the number of persons who cast their votes prior to the firing incident was large.23. It is significant that the appellant in the written statement denied that there was any occurrence at the Kayeea Polling booth. To some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the election petitioner it was suggested on behalf of the appellant that a firing took place when a quarrel developed between the Yadavas of village Kayeea and the Rajputs of village Chiraila. There was no such case pleaded in the written statement. This was on after thought to extricate from the established evidence of firing by Nagendra Singh who was in the company of the appellant.24. The High Court rightly accepted the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice at Kayeea polling station.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was really the most contemporaneous documentary evidence which supported the case of the election petitioner. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that Dukhan Yadav manufactured a case against the appellant. The appellant and Nagendra Singh were together. Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun. The appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot. Nagendra Singh fired the gun. Dukhan Yadav received a pellet injury from that gun shot. Many voters were waiting in a queue to cast their vote. The gun shot and the cry ofraised by Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh scared away the voters. The report of the Presiding Officer also indicates that the number of persons who cast their votes prior to the firing incident was large.23. It is significant that the appellant in the written statement denied that there was any occurrence at the Kayeea Polling booth. To some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the election petitioner it was suggested on behalf of the appellant that a firing took place when a quarrel developed between the Yadavas of village Kayeea and the Rajputs of village Chiraila. There was no such case pleaded in the written statement. This was on after thought to extricate from the established evidence of firing by Nagendra Singh who was in the company of the appellant.The High Court rightly accepted the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice at Kayeea polling station.There was some common place comment at the trial about the witnesses namely that they were inimical or partisan or they were not consistent about the time of the occurrence. Mr. Gupta however did not rely on such comments on the evidence. He put it quite surely that it was really a question as to belief of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner.21. The broad and basic features of the petitioners case have been established beyond doubt.22. The first Information Report Exhibit 4 was recorded at 4.15 p.m. on February 9, 1969.It was really the most contemporaneous documentary evidence which supported the case of the election petitioner. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that Dukhan Yadav manufactured a case against the appellant. The appellant and Nagendra Singh were together. Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun. The appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot. Nagendra Singh fired the gun. Dukhan Yadav received a pellet injury from that gun shot. Many voters were waiting in a queue to cast their vote. The gun shot and the cry ofd by Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh scared away the voters. The report of the Presiding Officer also indicates that the number of persons who cast their votes prior to the firing incident was large.23. It is significant that the appellant in the written statement denied that there was any occurrence at the Kayeea Polling booth. To some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the election petitioner it was suggested on behalf of the appellant that a firing took place when a quarrel developed between the Yadavas of village Kayeea and the Rajputs of village Chiraila. There was no such case pleaded in the written statement. This was on after thought to extricate from the established evidence of firing by Nagendra Singh who was in the company of the appellant.