LAKSHMAN SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 23-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
LAKSHMAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
(Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2021)
JULY 23, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 327 and 147 – Prosecution case was
that on the day of general election PW-8 was issuing slips to the
voters 200 yards away from pooling booth – Accused persons who
belonged to another village came there armed with lathis, sticks
and country made pistols and asked PW-8 to stop issuing voter
slips and hand over voter list and on refusal by PW-8 started beating
him with hands, fists, lathis and sticks – When PW-10, the brother
of PW-8 came to rescue him, accused-‘D’ fired gun shot at PW-10
due to which he received pellet injuries – Accused-‘A’ fired at PW-
12 – Thereafter villagers rushed there and accused persons ran
from the spot – Conviction of accused under ss. 327 and 147 –
Appeal against conviction – Held: PW-5, PW8, PW10 and PW12
were injured eye-witnesses – Their injuries were established and
proved by evidence of doctor who examined them – All the witnesses
fully supported the case of prosecution – Even some of the accused
sustained injuries and they failed to explain their injuries in their
s. 313 statements – Presence of independent witnesses and the
injured eye-witnesses at the place of incident was natural – All the
witnesses were consistent in their statements and fully supported
the case of prosecution – No error in order of conviction –
Interference not called for..
Penal Code, 1860: s. 323 – Injury report – Absence of –
Effect on prosecution case – Held: Production of an injury report
for offence under s.323 is not a sine qua non for establishing the
case for offence under s.323 – s.323 is punishable section for
voluntarily cause hurt – Even causing bodily pain can be said to be
causing ‘hurt’.
Penal Code, 1860: s.147 – Presence of all the accused persons
at the time of incident was established and proved by prosecution
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 723
723
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
witnesses – They formed unlawful assembly in prosecution of
common object i.e. to snatch the voters list and to cast bogus voting
– Appellants were rightly convicted under s.147.
Sentence/sentencing – Booth capturing and bogus voting –
Essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters
to exercise their free choice – Therefore, any attempt of booth
capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands
because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy – Nobody
can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election – However,
in the instant case State did not prefer any appeal against imposing
of only six months simple imprisonment, no interference with
sentence order made – Electoral system.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, while convicting the accused,
the trial Court heavily relied upon the deposition of PW1, PW3
and PW4, who were the independent witnesses and PW5, PW8
& PW10, who were the injured witnesses. The presence of the
independent witnesses and even the injured witnesses at the
place of the incident was natural. PW1, PW3 & PW4, all of whom
were the residents of the village and they came there to cast
their votes and witnessed the incident. All the witnesses, PW1,
PW3 & PW4 identified all the accused persons and supported
the case of the prosecution fully. Injuries on PW5, PW10 & PW12
were established and proved by the prosecution by evidence of
the doctor (PW7), who examined the injured witnesses. Their
injury reports were placed on record. All the accused persons
were named right from the very beginning of lodging the FIR
and all the accused persons were specifically named by all the
witnesses and/or fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even
some of the accused sustained injuries and they have failed to
explain their injuries in their 313 statements. Thus, their presence
at the time and place of incident was established and proved even
otherwise. PW5, PW8 and PW10 were the injured witnesses. Even
after they were fully cross-examined, they fully supported the
case of the prosecution, even after thorough cross-examination
on behalf of the accused. There is no reason to doubt the
credibility and/or trustworthiness of PW1, PW3 & PW4 and more
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
particularly PW5, PW8 & PW10, who are the injured witnesses.
All the witnesses are consistent in their statements and they have
fully supported the case of the prosecution. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.