The use of force by any one member of the unlawful assembly, slightest it may be, once established as unlawful, constitute rioting : Supreme Court.

 

The use of force by any one member of the unlawful assembly, slightest it may be, once established as unlawful, constitute rioting : Supreme Court.

                               

            The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an Common Appeal from the impugned common judgement of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, dismissed the appeal and directed the Appellants, to surrender and serve out their sentence of six months. They were convicted, by the Trial Court, of the offences of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt, by use of lathis, sticks and country made pistol, to the witnesses under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC. Appellants and many other accused , armed with lathis, sticks, country made pistols, asked a party worker who was issuing slips to voters,  to  stop issuing and handover the slips to them. On refusal, they started physically beating him with hands, fists, lathis and sticks and also others who came to rescue him. In consequence many got injured.

            In the present case, the Trial Court was able to establish unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, i.e., to snatch the voters list and to cast bogus voting against the Appellants. The Court held and convicted each member of the unlawful assembly to be guilty of the offence of rioting even though he may not have himself used force or violence. The use of force, even though it be the slightest possible character by any one member of the assembly, once established as unlawful constitute rioting. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement or order of conviction and sentence, Appellants preferred appeal in the High Court.

In an appeal the Supreme Court, after hearing submissions State's Counsel with regard to evidence of an  injured eye witness held, with reference to the catena of cases,  for example State of M.P vs Man Singh (2003) that " evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly". It is further observed in  Man Singh's decision that "minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence"

            Before parting, Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, relied the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (2013) wherein it was observed that the freedom of voting is freedom of expression and held the smooth functioning of electoral system is basic requirement. Within its ambit include the right of an elector to cast his vote without fear or duress. it was further observed that secrecy of casting vote is necessary for strengthening democracy and in direct elections of Lok Sabha and State Legislature, maintenance of secrecy is a must. Even snatching of  voters list and to cast bogus voting is against the theory of free election. The Hon'ble Supreme Court  held that the bogus voting seriously undermines the most basic feature of democracy and interferes with the conduct of free and fair election. 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.

            Hence appeal was dismissed and sentence of the Trial Court as well as the High Court  was confirmed. Since the State has not preferred an appeal against sentence of six months considering the severity of the offence undermining the basic structure of constitution i.e., right to free and fair election, the Apex Court decided to rest the matter on the lower court conviction.

Case: Lakshman Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. vs State of Jharkhand

DOJ:  23.07.2021