Read Time: 08 minutes

While upholding the High Court order of conviction under section 323 and section 147 of IPC, the Supreme Court in its judgement dated July 23, 2021 has observed that 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.

Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah also observed that, 

“The 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.”

In the present matter an FIR under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 324, 323 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was lodged on November 26, 1989 alleging that on the eve of general election the complainant (Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari) was working as a worker of BJP at village Goldhana Booth and was issuing slips to voters. The accused(s) belonging to another village came with lathis, sticks, country made pistols and asked him to stop issuing voter slips and handover the voters list which he was possessing and on his refusal the accused persons started physically beating him with hands, fists, lathis and sticks. Upon knowing about the incident, the complainant’s brother came to rescue him and one of the accused (Dinanath Singh) fired a gun shot on his brother due to which he received pellet injuries. Another accused (Ajay Singh) fired at Dinesh Tiwari due to which he was injured and during scuffle, another accused (Hira Singh) snatched wrist watches of the complainant and his brother. 

After conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed chargesheet against 15 accused including the appellants herein. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 307, 147, 149 and 379 IPC. Accused Dinanath Singh and Ajay Singh were further charged under Sections 148 IPC and accused Hira Singh was also charged under Section 379 IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court. 

The trial Court convicted the accused(s) for the offences under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months simple imprisonment for both the offences. Thetrial Court also convicted accused Dinanath Singh for the offences under Sections 326 & 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years and two years RI respectively and accused Ajay Singh for the offences under Sections 324 & 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years & two years RI respectively.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court order, the accused(s) filed an appeal in the High Court. Confirming the trial Court’s sentence and judgement, the High Court dismissed the appeals and the accused(s) thereafter approached the Top Court.

The Top Court while upholding the High Court judgement observed that in the case it was established and proved that all the accused(s) were members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, namely, “to snatch the voters list and to cast bogus voting” and have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC, the trial Court has imposed the sentence of only six months simple imprisonment. 

Reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgement in People's Union for Civil Liberties in which the Court had observed that, 

“Freedom of voting is a part of the freedom of expression. Democracy and free elections are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Secrecy of casting vote is necessary for strengthening democracy. Direct elections of Lok Sabha or State Legislature, maintenance of secrecy is a must and is insisted upon all over the world in democracies where direct elections are involved to ensure that a voter casts his vote without any fear or being victimised if his vote is disclosed. Democracy and free elections are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Election is a mechanism which ultimately represents the will of the people.”

Case Title: Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar