The evidence led by the respondent companysists mainly of PWs 1, 27, 32, 35, 39 and Out of these witnesses, PWs 27, 32, 35, 39 and 41 are independent voters, number belonging to any party.
After a close scrutiny of the evidence we are fully satisfied that the appellant was undoubtedly present at the Bhurkunda polling 1097 booth at the time when the voters were going to cast their votes and his agents or supporters indulged in acts of assault, hurling of bombs, etc.,
Their evidence stands companyroborated by the FIR lodged in the police station soon after the occurrence as a result of which the police reached the spot of occurrence and found that there was a lot of trouble in the Bhurkunda booth where the voters were pressurised and intimidated.
Among the persons who had acted in such a fashion, the witness identified, Babu Chand, Ram Chandra Mahto, Bisheshwar Yadav, Ram Prasad Yadav and Surajdeo Yadav.
The final finding arrived at by the High Court may be extrated thus Thus I have examined and discussed above the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties with regard to 79 Bhurkunda booth, from which it is clear that there is abundance of reliable evidence on the record to prove the petitioners case that on the date of poll at about 11.30.
It is clear from the evidence of this independent witness that the threatening and obstructing of the voters was done at the orders of the appellant himself which amply proves the allegation of undue influence.
The witness goes on to state that after the appellant had left the place, about 300 400 men of the appellant surrounded the booth and removed the voters, including the witness, from the queue and therefore they companyld number cast their votes.
Similar is the evidence of other witnesses who have number been in any way broken of shattered in cross examination.
As a sample, PW 39 Kamta Prasad Singh , who was a voter in the aforesaid election, has stated that he had gone to cast his vote at about 11.30 a.m. and was standing in the queue alongwith 20 25 other voters.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th April, 1980 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.
a.m. Respondent No.
He further stated that Mukhlal Singh, Advocate, who was the polling agent of Ram Sharan Yadav, had led the mob of miscreants at the booth.
Another independent witness, PW 41, has also fully companyroborated the evidence of other independent witnesses indicated above.
were companymitted with the positive knowledge and companysent of the appellant himself or his agents.
To the same effect is the evidence of PW 62, Ramdeo Singh, who has also stated that he was informed that men of Ram Sharan Yadav had snatched away the ballot papers and torn them and created all sorts of disturbance.
In cross examination, the witness clarified that he made an oral companyplaint to the Presiding Officer that he was number allowed to cast vote and a written companyplaint was given by the sarpanch of the village.
As against the overwhelming evidence adduced by the respondent, the evidence of Ram Sharan Yadav appellant himself is one of a plea of alibi who stated that he did number go to Bhurkunda polling booth at all and that on the date of poll he was at his village 1096 Haspura in his partys election office.
He goes on to narrate that he saw one Ram Prasad Yadav of Ibrahimpur at the booth the 1095 appellant appeared on the scene and asked Ram Prasad Yadav as to how the polling was going on, to which he was informed that the polling did number appear to be favourable to him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Hence, this appeal to this Court.
in his presence and he did number stop them from doing so from which a companyclusive inference can be drawn that the acts of assault, arson, etc.
893 of 1980.
He companyld number inform the respondent because he was himself surrounded by the mob.
Thereupon, the appellant ordered Ram Prasad Yadav to capture the booth and after giving this instruction he left the place.
R. Singh and A. Sharan for the Respondent.
An election petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court for setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he had indulged in companyrupt practices as envisaged in s. 123 2 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
K. Garg and V.J. Francis for the Appellant.
The result was announced on 16.6.77 in which Ram Sharan Yadav appellant , a candidate sponsored by the Communist Party of India, was declared elected after polling 28,783 votes as against 16,458 votes polled by Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh the first respondent herein .
He further testifies that he saw the respondent at the booth and that he also knew the appellant Ram Sharan Yadav .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. The election appeal is directed against a judgment dated April 10, 1980 of the Patna High Court setting aside the appellant mainly on the ground that he had been found guilty of indulging in companyrupt practice in the election held on 10.6.77 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 241 Goh Assembly companystituency.
The plea of the respondent found with the High Court which set aside the election of the appellant.
