9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Non-disclosure of sources of information in the affidavit. 4. Reliability of oral evidence provided by witnesses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices under Section 123(4) of the Act: The High Court found the appellant guilty of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, based on speeches delivered at Singoli on 29 January 1967, Athana on 9 February 1967, and Jhatla on 12 February 1967. The allegations included false claims that the respondent had bribed Kajod Dhakad with Rs. 5000 and set up a man to attack the appellant with a knife. The Supreme Court, however, did not accept the High Court's reliance on the oral evidence provided by the respondent's witnesses, citing inconsistencies and lack of credibility. The Supreme Court found that the witnesses' testimonies were identical and seemed rehearsed, and there was no documentary evidence to support the respondent's claims. 2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Act: The High Court also found the appellant guilty of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Act for appealing to voters on the ground of religion and threatening them with divine displeasure if they voted for the Congress. This was based on speeches at Jhatla on 12 February 1967 and by the Swamiji of Bhanpura at Morwan, Singoli, and Diken on 15 February 1967. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence unreliable. The witnesses' testimonies were identical and seemed coached. The alleged notes of the speeches were not produced, and key witnesses were not examined. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations. 3. Non-disclosure of Sources of Information in the Affidavit: The respondent's affidavit did not disclose the sources of information regarding the alleged speeches, which is required under Section 83 of the Act and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of setting out sources of information to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and to give the other side an opportunity to verify the evidence. The non-disclosure raised doubts about the credibility of the respondent's claims, and the Supreme Court found this to be a significant flaw in the respondent's case. 4. Reliability of Oral Evidence Provided by Witnesses: The Supreme Court scrutinized the oral evidence provided by the respondent's witnesses and found it to be unreliable. The witnesses' testimonies were identical, rehearsed, and lacked credibility. Key witnesses were not examined, and there was no documentary evidence to support the allegations. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in relying on such evidence to find the appellant guilty of corrupt practices. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, finding the appellant not guilty of any corrupt practices. The election petition was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of credible evidence and proper disclosure of sources of information in election petitions.
|
