9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No. 1 were the main rival candidates. The total votes polled from the constituency were 47650, out of which the appellant polled 19710 whereas respondent No. 1 secured 20128 votes, the margin being rather small, viz., 418. The appellant sought to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 on various grounds consisting of corrupt practices committed by him (respondent No.1) which, according to the appellant, materially affected the result of the election. The appellant, who is an Advocate, argued his case with brevity and ingenuity and fairly conceded that he was not going to press all the allegations made in the petition but would confine his arguments only to the allegations pertaining to s. 123(4) of the Representation of the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. In this connection, the allegations made may be classed under two separate categories: (a) Utterances, speeches, news items and articles regarding the allegation that the appellant was directly connected with the murder of Asa Ram in 1978, and (b) speeches and news items made and issued by respondent No. 1 on various occasions proximate to the date of the election. (2) Similar acts committed by respondent No. 1 in close proximity to the election, i.e., sometime in May 1980. After having gone through the evidence statement of witnesses and he documents placed before us, we are unable to find any close connection or direct link between the imputations made against the appellant in 1978 and those made in 1980. In none of the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the 1972 election with which their Lordships were concerned in that case and in this connection while overruling an important document they observed thus: "We are not impressed by the argument on behalf of the respondent that Ex. A-57, which shows that even in 1970 a representation of a similar kind was made, shows that there were many others out to besmirch the name of the appellant. Ex-A-57 contains many instances which have nothing to do with the election in 1972 or the setting up of a Congress candidate in that election. That is the affinity between Ex. A-48 and Ex-A1." On a parity of reasoning, therefore, we cannot call into aid the allegations made as far back as 1978. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider or to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivered fiery speeches connecting the appellant with the murder of Asa Ram, which was deposed to by PWs 8 and 13. PW 8 has stated that he attended a meeting on 18. 5.80 at Basti Guzan. The learned Judge disbelieved his evidence as being wholly improbable. Moreover, there is a contradiction in his evidence because at one place he says that Yash (respondent No. 1) spoke first and was followed by Sansar Chand and yet at another place he says that Sansar Chand spoke first and was followed by Yash. It is impossible to conceive of such a contradiction if the witness apart from being interested and partisan had been present in the meeting throughout, he would not forget the sequence of such an important matter. Another witness relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a secondhand secondary evidence. It is well-known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." In the instant case, there is no evidence to show the actual record of the speech made by respondent No I or Sansar Chand and , therefore, the said news item does not advance the case of the appellant any further, particularly when it has been stoutly denied by respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the speech has been reproduced, no allegation has been made against him. The appellant however, tried in vain to argue that the aforesaid speech would amount to inuendo because it has expressly referred to the circumstances under which Asa Ram was murdered. By no stretch of imagination can the doctrine of inuendo be invoked to the aforesaid speech. We therefore, reject this contention also. After a careful consideration of the documents, the circumstances of the case and the oral evidence of the witnesses placed before us. We find ourselves in agreement with the judgment of the High Court. Indeed, it is very difficult to prove a charge of corrupt practice merely on the basis of oral evidence because in election cases, it is very easy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
