9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Hiring and use of Truck No. HRR-5167 for free conveyance of voters. 2. Hiring and use of Tractor No. DLL-9 for free conveyance of voters. 3. Payment of compensation of Rs. 7,000 to Mange Ram and non-disclosure in election expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Hiring and Use of Truck No. HRR-5167 The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate hired Truck No. HRR-5167 for Rs. 200 and used it to convey voters from Turakpur to Mandaura polling station. The High Court found the appellant guilty of this corrupt practice under Section 123(5) and Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the testimony of Tara Chand (P.W. 11), who claimed to have witnessed the hiring. The Court found Tara Chand's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and his dubious credibility. The Court also noted that other witnesses from Turakpur who could have substantiated the claim were not examined. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the hiring and use of the truck for free conveyance of voters, reversing the High Court's findings on Issues 1 and 5. Issue No. 2: Hiring and Use of Tractor No. DLL-9 The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate hired Tractor No. DLL-9 for Rs. 200 through his agents Suba Singh and Om Parkash to convey voters from Aurangabad to Jakhauli polling station. The High Court upheld this charge. However, the Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and lack of credibility in the testimonies of Om Parkash (P.W. 29) and Richhpal Singh (P.W. 14). Om Parkash's testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by other evidence, while Richhpal Singh's statement about being challaned and fined was found dubious, especially since the challan mentioned a deceased person, Shiv Lal, as the owner. The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove this charge, reversing the High Court's finding on Issue No. 4. Issue No. 3: Payment of Compensation to Mange Ram The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate paid Rs. 7,000 to Mange Ram as compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving Truck No. HRR-5167 and failed to disclose this amount in his election expenses. The High Court found this charge proven. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence unreliable. The testimonies of witnesses like Amir Singh (P.W. 9) and Lakhu Bairagi (P.W. 10) were inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The Court noted that Mange Ram's dying declaration did not implicate the returned candidate in any settlement or payment. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to prove this charge, rendering Issue No. 7 redundant and reversing the High Court's finding. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the election petition with costs, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges of corrupt practices under Section 123(5) and Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
|
