TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of religion and threatening with divine displeasure those who voted for the Congress in the three speeches delivered on 15 February, 1967 at Morwan, Singoli and Diken by the Swamiji of Bhanpura at the instance, and in the presence, and after introduction by the appellant of the Swamiji of Bhanpura to the audience at those three places. 2. On 31 January, 1972 we delivered the order holding that we did not agree with the finding of the High Court and we also held the appellant to be not guilty of any corrupt practice. We stated then that we would give the reasons later. We now give those reasons. 3. The appellant and the respondent Jagjiwan Joshi and the other two respondents were four candidates from Jawad Constituency for election to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly at the general election held in the year 1967. The appellant was successful at the election. The respondent Joshi challenged the election of the appellant. 4. The allegations under Section 123(4) of the Act fall under two classes. The first relates to the speech delivered by the appellant at Singoli on 29 January, 1967 and a speech delivered by the appellant at Athana on 9 February, 1967. The speech at Singo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a sacred day is to commit the sin of cow-killing. At Singoli: In the Congress Government sixteen cows are being killed every minute. How long will this cow-killing Congress rule the country? How long will it show indifference to the feelings of the overwhelming Hindu majority just on the strength of the support of a handful of cow-eating Musalmans? If you love the Hindu dharma, if there is Hindu blood in your veins, do not vote for the Congress; but uproot it. Form a new Government by putting your seal on the Jan Sangh deepak. Shri Saklecha is your Chief Minister to be. The 20th February as a sacred day being Monday gyras. Do not on such a sacred day vote for the cow-killing Congress and bring yourself to hell (narak ke bhagi na bane). At Diken: There was a yagna for putting an end to the cow killing in this country. Many sadhus and sanyasis have sacrificed their life for this, but the Congress, intoxicated with power has along with cow-killing killed sadhus also. It is the dharma of every Hindu not' to vote for such murderous Congress. The 20th is Monday gyaras and a sacred day. So put your seal on the deepak and make the Jan Sangh successful. The Jan Sangh wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia affidavits. Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules states that every affidavit should clearly express how much is a statement and declaration from knowledge and how much is a statement made on information or belief and must also state the source or grounds of information or belief with sufficient particularity. 11. Form No. 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules requires the deponent of an affidavit to set out which statements are true to the Knowledge of the deponent and which statements are true to his information. The source of information is required to be given under the provisions in accordance with Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules. In so far as form No. 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules requires the deponent to state which statements are true to knowledge there is no specific mention of the sources of information in the form. The form of the affidavit and the High Court Rules are not inconsistent. The High Court Rules give effect to provisions of Order 19 of the CPC. 12. The importance of setting out the sources of information in affidavits came up for consideration before this Court from time to time. One of the earliest decisions is State of B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other side notice of the contemporaneous evidence on which the election petition is based. That will give an opportunity to the other side to test the genuineness and veracity of the sources of information. The other point of view is that the election petitioner will not be able to make any departure from the sources or grounds. If there is any embellishment of the case it will be discovered. 15. The non-disclosure of grounds or sources of information in the affidavit of the election petitioner in the present case assumed importance by reason of the fact that the respondent said that he had a written report about the alleged speech at Athana and the report was given to the respondent by Ram Kumar Aggarwal. Ram Kumar Aggarwal was also a candidate of the Congress party at the same election from the same constituency which is the subject matter of the appeal. Ram Kumar Aggarwal was not examined as a witness. The written notes of Ram Kumar Aggarwal were admitted by the respondent to be with him. The respondent gave the explanation for non-production of Ram Kumar Aggarwal that he produced only such witnesses who either opposed him in the election or were independent. As to persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination stated that the appellant also talked of 'Lagan'. When he was asked as to why he did not mention this fact in his examination-in-chief, his answer was that the appellant had mentioned of 'Lagan' at the end of the speech, and, therefore, he did not speak about it in examination-in-chief. This indicates as to how Laxmi Lal tried to impart originality to his version of remembrance of things. 20. Chand Mohammad was believed by the High Court with regard to his presence at Athana but was disbelieved with regard to his presence at Sarwania Masania. It may be stated here that the High Court did not accept the case of the respondent with regard to Sarwania Masania. Chand Mohammad happened to be a casual witness with regard to the meeting at Athana. His evidence was that he was going to the house of Dhakad Kheri and he stopped for a minute or two to listen to Jan Sangh speakers. That is how he heard the appellant speaking. The fortuitous manner in which Chand Mohammad attended the meeting at Athana shows that he was introduced to support the respondent by repeating what the previous witnesses said about the Athana meeting. This will be apparent in view of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anguage. Each witness mentioned the names of the speakers in the same order. The entire evidence on behalf of the respondent is tutored and prompted to support the respondent. The High Court was wrong in relying on the oral evidence of the respondent and his witnesses. In the background of the entire oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent it is apparent as to why the respondent did not mention the grounds or sources of information in the affidavit. There were no real sources. Sources were fabricated. There is not a single piece of documentary evidence to support the case of the respondent. The alleged notes of the meeting at Athana which were admitted by the respondent to be in existence never saw the light of the day. The withholding of that document gives a lie to the respondent's case. It is obvious that if there were in existence any notes the respondent would have exhibited them at the earlier opportunity. 23. The High Court not only disbelieved the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant with regard to the meeting at Athana but also made certain observations about the first information report lodged by Sunder Lal Petlia R.W. 35, with regard to an incid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the speeches of the appellant. 26. Daulat Ram Sharma admitted that he had no occasion to repeat the speech to anybody except when he came to depose in court. Daulat Ram Sharma went in search of his cattle to the pond at Jhatla. He could not find his cow. He went to purchase tobacco. When he reached the shop he saw a meeting of Jan Sangh going on. He heard the speech of the appellant. He does not belong to Jhatla but lives at Jhabarka Rajpura at a distance of 3 furlongs from Jhatla. It is indeed remarkable that a person who by chance walked to the meeting would not only remember the entire speech ascribed to the appellant in the election petition but also depose to it in court without ever having mentioned the speech to anybody and in particular the respondent. Daulat Ram Sharma stated that this was the only meeting attended by him in his life. Such a witness cannot inspire any confidence. 27. Kastur Chand Jain was the polling agent of the respondent. He discussed with the respondent the latter's defeat about two months after the election. He told the respondent that he would give evidence in court without any summons. He attended the Congress Session and is associated w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Congress party of Singoli held in the months of August and October, 1966. Ram Chandra Sharma's name appears in the notices of the meetings of the Congress Party in the months of August and October, 1966 at Singoli which are Exhibits R-1/7 and R-1/8. Ram Chandra Sharma appears as a signatory to the minutes. After having admitted the signatures Ram Chandra Sharma made attempts to disown his signatures. Exhibits R-1/9, R-1/10, R-1/11, R-1/12, R-1/13 and R-1/14 are receipts signed by the witness Ram Chandra Sharma. These receipts relate to expenses for meals and refreshments arranged for the workers near about the time of the election. Ram Chandra Sharma denied his signatures but he admitted that the Congress workers and other customers paid him for the meals. He denied that he gave the respondent any receipt. Ram Chandra Sharma obviously wanted to extricate himself from the receipts which nullified his oral evidence. Ram Chandra Sharma was a very interested witness and he was directly associated with the respondent. Ram Chandra Sharma said that the only meeting he attended in his life was the one at Singoli on 29 January, 1967. Such singular attendance is not only suspicious b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were at the instance of audience. 37. With regard to the speech at Morwan apart from the respondent there were three witnesses on his behalf. They were P.W. 7 Manek Lal, P.W. 8 Ratan Lal Gaur Banjara and P.W. 9 Gulzari Lal Mahajan. Manek Lal gave evidence twice. The second time he gave evidence was in accordance with the understanding given by the respondent before this Court to produce some of the witnesses at his own cost. That undertaking was given at the hearing of an application by the appellant in this Court for transfer of the case to another Court. When Manek Lal gave evidence on the first occasion he did not mention that Swamiji of Bhanpura said at the meeting at Morwan on 15 February, 1967 that 20 February was a sacred day and to vote for Congress on such a sacred day would be to commit the sin of cow killing. Manek Lal said that he attended the meeting of the Congress and of the Jan Sangh and he voted. 38. Gulzari Lal said that the Morwan meeting was the only meeting he ever attended. Both Manek Lal and Gulzari Lal like other witnesses gave evidence about the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura in identical language and in the same sequence. 39. The hollowness of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; in the issue dated 30 November, 1966. There was an article written by Swamiji of Bhanpura. The High Court observed that Swamiji of Bhanpura wrote in that article that the killing of cow was one manner of killing God, and, therefore, it was extremely probable that a person who held that view would while speaking of cow protection give a deeply religious complexion and would condemn those who did not share his views. This is a strange logic. We are unable to accept the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses that there was any speech at Morwan that to vote for the Congress would be to commit the sin of cow killing. 43. The respondent's further case is that Swamiji of Bhanpura delivered a speech at Singoli on 15 February, 1967. This speech was also alleged by the respondent to be an appeal on the ground of religion and a threat that the voters would incur divine displeasure if they voted for the 'cow killing Congress'. The High Court relied on the evidence of P.W. 16 Paras Ram and P.W. 17 Bhanwar Lal. Paras Ram was confronted with a document Exhibit R-1/50. That document contains the minutes of the meeting. of the Congress party at Singoli on 26 August, 1966. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the father of Paras Ram on a pilgrimage. Bhanwar Lal remembered the speech of the appellant at Singoli, on 29 January, 1967 as also the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura. 48. Bhanwar Lal and all other witnesses who spoke about the speech of Swamiji narrated the same in the same language and in the same order. The first part of the speech related to cow, the second part being an appeal to religion and the third part related to an appeal to voters that voting for Congress would amount to a sin. Reading the evidence in print one gets the impression that each witness came prepared to play the part assigned to him. 49. Exhibit R-1/8 dated 26 August, 1966 is a notice for a meeting of the Congress Committee at Singoli. Exhibit R-1/50 dated 26 August, 1966 is the draft resolution of that committee meeting. It is written by the respondent. Exhibit R-1/5 dated 26 August, 1966 contains the minutes of the meeting at Singoli. Exhibit R-1/6 contains the minutes of the meeting of the Congress committee at Singoli on 2 October, 1966. These documents show that Paras Ram, Bhanwar Lal and Ram Chandra Sharma were connected with the Congress organisation. The respondent was also associated with the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji of Bhanpura spoke. The allegations are that there was an appeal on the ground of religion. The respondent produced two witnesses Shanti Lal P.W. 10 and RamBilas P.W. 11. 54. Shanti Lal's evidence was that the cow slaughter should be stopped and Monday gyaras was a holy day and all should vote for Jan Sangh and thus earn happiness and bliss and it was the duty of every Hindu not to vote for cow killing Congress. This evidence does not support the respondent's case. Shanti Lal said that his family left on 10 February, 1967. His family members went to Byama in Rajasthan to attend a marriage ceremony. Shanti Lal however said that he stayed on. He left on 16 February, 1967 and returned on 28 February, 1967. This was to make it possible for him to be present at Diken on 15 February, 1967. 55. Ram Bilas P.W. 11 narrated the speech, of Swamiji of Bhanpura. He however said that he had no talk with the respondent. It becomes difficult to follow as to how the respondent would know about the presence of the witness at Diken and then cite him as a witness. 56. The respondent gave an undertaking to this Court to produce the witness for cross-examination. The witnesses however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
