E ANOOP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction in a prosecution under S.171(F) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner appeared before the officers in charge of the polling station at Mokeri Government U. P. School in Peringalam Constituency at 3 p.m. on 11-9-1999 and personated himself as one Kuttikkattu Pavithran in the said booth No. 30. He claimed a ballot paper to facilitate him to exercise his franchise. He was not the said Pavithran. He was not a voter in that booth or constituency. The prosecution thereby alleged that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under S.171(D) I.P.C. -- of applying for a voting paper in the name of any other person.

(2.) The proceedings commenced with Ext. P1 F.I. statement, which is a report submitted by PW 1, the principal officer of the polling booth to the police. The petitioner had allegedly handed over Ext. P2 slip to facilitate his claim to be the said Pavithran. Ext. P2 was also submitted to the police along with Ext. P1 report/F.I. statement. Ext. P3 F.I.R. was registered on the basis of Ext. P1 F. I. statement. Investigation commenced and had culminated with the final report submitted by PW 9.

(3.) The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and proved Exts. P1 to P4. The accused did not take up any specific defence. In the course of cross examination of PWs 1 to 4, officers who were discharging duties in the polling booth and PWs 5 and 6 who are polling agents of some of the political parties present in the booth, it would appear that a defence of total denial was taken. In the course of 313 examination, a new defence was taken up that the petitioner had gone to the polling booth along with an old lady to help her to cast her vote. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence defined under S.171(D) punishable under S.171(F) of the I.P.C. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.