62, Bijubigha Polling Station No.
Nagendra Singh who was armed with a gun and the appellant started dissuading the voters from exercising their franchise or to vote for the Congress candidate.
1 to 10 were candidates at the election of a member to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Gaya Mufassal Assembly Constituency No.
It may number always be possible to examine all the witnesses before the investigating officer.
Dukhan Yadav pressed the wound and sat down.
The principal grounds were these.
There is numberevidence whatever to suggest that Dukhan Yadav manufactured a case against the appellant.
P.W. 27 Rambilas Singh said that he was standing in the line for casting his vote when he heard the gun fire.
15 p.m. on 9 February, 1969.
The companynting of votes took place on 12 February, 1969.
Dukhan Yadav supported the F.I.R. and said that the statements companytained therein were made by him.
The appellant also said that he had gone to Kayeea in the companypany of Nagendra Singh and that both of them were in a jeep.
62 were those.
The names of some of the persons who did number cast their votes and were scared away were furnished in the particular.
The persons who companymitted the companyrupt practice were stated to be the appellant, Nagendra Singh, Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihar Singh.
Names of 13 persons were given.
Nagendra Singh said that he had gone to Kayeea in the companypany of the appellant.
Rambilas Singh said that at the sight of the car Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihar Singh raised the cry of maro maro and at that cry the witness and the others fled away.
The third ground for impeaching the election of the appellant was companymission of companyrupt practices by him and his election agent and by other persons with the companysent of the appellant.
The broad and basic features of the petilioners case have been established beyond doubt.
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.
persons three were examined.
The Magistrate and the Sub Inspector of Police went towards the place from where the gun fire had been heard.
The particulars of the alleged companyrupt practices were set out in annexure 3 to the petition.
Both of them gave evidence.
The Magistrate and his officers went towards the side from which the gun fire shot had been heard.
The appellant and Nagendra Singh asked Dukhan Yadav and others as to where they were going to vote.
He also saw the Magistrate and the Sub Inspector of Police.
The High Court did number accept the case of the respondent election petitioner that the appellant bribed respondent No.
11 Ishwari Prasad Singh and thus inducing him to withdraw his candidature from the companytest.
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.
The Sub Inspector wrote the First Information Report.
The Sub Inspector gave evidence that he found Dukhan Yadav injured.
Dukhan Yadav said that Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun.
Dukhanyadav and others said that they would cast vote for Machhli Chhap fish symbol .
Mr. Gupta however did number rely on such companyments on the evidence.
It is significant that the appellant in the written statement denied that there was any occurrence at the Kayeea polling booth.
Nagendra Singh fired the gun.
The appellant ordered Nagendra Prasad Singh to shoot at them.
But Nagendra Prasad Singh shot his gun which hit Dukhan Yadav in his neck.
The first information report of Dukhan Yadav was recorded on the spot The Magistrate, Rameshwar Mahto and Ramkishun Yadav put their signatures.
The appellant obtained 15, 799 votes and was declared elected.
Seeing the appellant, his polling agents Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihari Singh raised a cry of maro maro .
They Were Brajeshwar Singh P.W. 20, Rambilash Singh P.W. 27 and Ram Assis Singh P.W. 30.
Respondent No.
He was companyfused.
Nagendrasingh was the proposter and worker of the appellant Sakaldip Singh and Nand Bihar Singh were the workers of the appellant.
The F.I.R. was attested by Rameshwar Mahto and Ramkishun Yadav.
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.
The allegations as to Kayeea polling booth No.
38, and Sadipur Polling Station No.
1 Surajdeo Singh filed an election petition in the Patna High Court challenging the election of the appellant as a member to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Gaya Mufassil Constituency.
The High Court accepted the case of the election petitioner that the appellant was guilty of the companymission of companyrupt practice at Kayeea polling station.
Some people fled away.
Dukhan Yadav received a pellet injury from that gun shot.
P.W. 17 Rameshwar Maho 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.
At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Gupta Counsel for the appellant addressed agruments on the case of exercise of undue influence at Kayeea Polling Station and quite fairly submitted that if this Court came to the companyclusion that allegations of undue influence at Kayeea Polling Station were proved the appellant companyld number succeed in the appeal.
On refusal by most of the voters to accede to their companymand the appellant ordered assault whereupon Nagendrasingh tired his gun with the result that Dukhan Yadav received pellet injury.
Second, the appellant obtained the assistance for the furtherance of his prospects at the election from one J.N. Singh, Anchal Adhikari cum Block Development Officer who between 15 January, 1969 and 6 February, 1969 on the pretext of companylection of loan canvassed votes for the appellant.
He heard the cry of maro maro.
The High Court however found the case in respect of exercise of under influence at Kayeea Polling Station as well as canvassing of votes by J.N. Singh in favour of the appellant to be true and thus declared the election of the appellant void.
At this, many voters who still remained there left the queue and fled away without casting their votes.
On these 13.
Thereupon the appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot.
Thereupon the appellant and Nagendra Singh insisted that they should vote for the bullock chhap the symbol of the Congress Party.
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 companynection with the election.
11 and thus induced him to withdraw from the companytest.
He however companyld number ascertain till the day of his deposition as to who had fired the gun.
The Sub Inspector of Police Ramlakhan Prasad and the Magistrate A.N. Ghosh both ran in the direction from where the gun fire had been shot.
The evidence adduced established that the appellant and Nagendra Singh with a gun in his hand were moving around in a jeep at Kayeea polling station Dukhan Yadav P.W. 18, Kedar Mahto P.W. 39 and Chhatar Mahto P.W. 42 were companying along a foot path and when they came to the road, a jeep and a car came there.
The High Court also rejected the case of the respondent election petitioner as to the scaring away of voters at Bijubigha and Sadipur Polling Stations.
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 Nagi ndra Singh.
The appellant asked Nagendra Singh to shoot.
Ratnbilas saw a jeep companying followed by a taxi or car.
The election of the appellant was challenged on various grounds.
Nagendra Singh was carrying a gun.
The line was broken.
The witnesses saw the appellant and Nagendra Singh with a gun and a driver inside the jeep.
The respondent election petitioner at the trial companyfined the third ground to companymission of companyrupt practices by the appellant and his election agent and other persons at three places, namely,Kayeea Polling Station No.
The appellant and Nagendra Singh were together.
The witness saw in the jeep the appellant and Nagendra Singh who had a gun in his hand.
The evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the election petitioner was as follows.
Dukhan like others started fleeing away from that place.
First, the appellant was guilty of companymitting a companyrupt practice of bribing respondent No.
On 9 February, 1969 at about 3.30 p m. when the polling at Kayeea booth No.
Thereafter the voters numbering about 150 who had assembled to exercise their franchise were scared away and they left the place without exercising their franchise.
Those persons said that they would vote according to their own choice and number at the dictate of any person This enraged the appellant and Nagendra Singh.
In that annexure the time of the occurrence at Kayeea Polling Station was 3.30 p m on 9 February, 1969 the date of the pulling.
Thereafter the jeep passed close to the booth.
Some of them got afraid and fled away.
The First Information Report Exhibit 4 was recorded at 4.
The date of poll was 9 February, 1969.
But Cukhan received the pallet injury in his neck.
The appellant asked those persons assembled there as to whom they were going to vote for and their reply was that they would vote for Machhli Chhap the fish symbol .
The Magistrate said that Nagendra Singh was the lawyer at Gaya.
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.
When Nagendra Prasad Singh took up his gun and began to load the cartridge, these persons started fleeing away.
The Magistrate and some armed companystables who were near the Kayeea polling station came there.
62 was in progress, the appellant along with his proposer and worker Nagendra Singh along with others came near the polling station seated in a jeep car and got down near the polling station.
The appellant and respondents No.
Rameshwar Mahto also said that he saw a jeep and a car companying 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.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal Under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment and order dated 5 March, 1970 of the High Court at Patna declaring the election of the appellant void.
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 number of the ejection petitioner.
There was some companymon place companyment at the trial about the witnesses namely that they were inimical or partisan or they were number companysistent about the time of the occurrence.
Again, the evidence of Rambilas Singh was criticised on the ground that he was number examined as an eye witness before the investigating officer.
It was really the most companytemporaneous documentary evidence which supported the case of the election petitioner.
The other two companypanions then also came near him On hearing the gun fire most of the voiers, got scared and fled away.
