Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Singh Lodhi vs Smt. Chanda Devi on 28 June, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Election Petition No.11/2014
Rahul Singh Lodhi
Vs.
Smt. Chanda Devi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Arpan J.Pawar.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sharma
with Mr.Rajmani Mishra.
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan
O R D E R
( / /2018) The present petition has been filed under the relevant provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, calling into question the election of the Respondent Smt. Chanda Devi, who is the returned candidate from 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency, mainly on the ground of corrupt practices as enumerated under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). According to the Petitioner, the election of the Respondent is vitiated under Section 100(1)(d) of the 2 Act of 1951 on the ground of alleged corrupt practices and therefore, liable to be set aside.
SUMMARY OF AVERMENTS FROM THE PLEADINGS
2. The notification relating to the conduct of Assembly Election in the State of Madhya Pradesh was issued by the Election Commission on 4.10.2013. The election programme of 47 Khargapur Constituency was notified by the Returning Officer on 1.11.2013. The filing of nomination papers was permitted upto 8.11.2013. Scrutiny of nomination papers was to be done on 9.11.2013. Withdrawal of nomination was to be done latest by 11.11.2013 and 25.11.2013 was fixed as the date of polling. The counting of votes was to be effected on 8.12.2013 and on the same day, the result was to be declared.
3. The Petitioner states that he was a candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party, who was given a ticket to contest the election from 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency, District Tikamgarh. The Respondent contested the election from 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency as a candidate of Indian National Congress. Besides the Petitioner and the Respondent, there were 8 other candidates who contested the election from the above-mentioned Constituency. There were 2,04,500 registered voters in the Constituency. There were 213 polling stations. The total votes polled in the Constituency were 1,38,698 out of which the 3 Petitioner is stated to have received 54,094 whereas the Respondent was declared elected as a returned candidate having secured 59,771 votes. The Respondent defeated the Petitioner by a margin of 5677 votes.
4. According to the Petitioner, in the constituency, 18 polling booths were identified as highly sensitive and 59 other polling booths were identified as sensitive by the Returning Officer. However, no appropriate arrangement was alleged to have been made for securing the aforesaid polling booth to ensure free and fair election. The Petitioner further contends that only one unarmed constable from Home Guards was deployed on few of the highly sensitive and sensitive polling booths in the Constituency. He further states that apprehensive about the successful conduct of the free and fair election in the 18 highly sensitive and 59 sensitive polling booths, he made as many as three representations to the Returning Officer on 22.11.2013 so that adequate security arrangements could be made to secure the polling booths.
5. In paragraph 10 of the petition, the Petitioner avers that information regarding the 18 highly sensitive and 59 sensitive booths were not supplied to the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh on account of which the Respondent got a free hand to resort to corrupt practices.
4
6. In paragraph 11 of the election petition, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent belongs to a family which has businesses concerns in liquor, mining and construction. Therefore, the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent wields considerable influence in 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency. It is further alleged that the Respondent, exploited her influence and bribed the voters in village Devardha situated in Janpad Baldeogarh of 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency for securing their votes. It is also alleged that on 22.11.2013 between 10 and 10.30 a.m., the Respondent openly distributed currency of Rs.500/- to bribe the voters in village Devardha. Rajaram Rai, son of Pyarelal Rai, Pyarelal Rai, son of late Bhawanti Rai and Ramesh Kumar Shukla, son of late Darbarilal Shukla were three of the recipients of the alleged bribe. It is also alleged that while distributing the cash to the aforesaid persons, the Respondent is stated to have instructed them to vote for her. The distribution of the said cash by the Respondent was allegedly witnessed by Bhagwandas Lodhi, son of late Kashiram Lodhi, resident of village Gharon, who happened to be in village Devardha between 10 and 10.30 a.m on 22.11.2013 visiting his friends and relatives.
7. In paragraph 12 of the election petition, the Petitioner alleges that on 22.11.2013 at around 9.00 in the morning, the Respondent accompanied by her husband Mr. Surendra Singh allegedly distributed cash in the form of bribe to the voters in village 5 Surajpur, Janpad Baldeogarh of 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency. The recipients of the alleged bribe were Shobhat Lodhi, son of Acchelal Lodhi, Acchelal Lodhi, son of Masanti Lodhi, Hira Lodhi, son of late Brindawan Lodhi and Jagannath Lodhi, son of Jodha Lodhi who are stated to have received an amount of Rs.500/- each, for casting their votes in favour of the Respondent. The aforesaid persons are stated to have witnessed each other receiving the amount from the Respondent.
8. In paragraph 13 of the election petition, the Petitioner has alleged that on 25.11.2013, the Respondent indulged in booth capturing through a persons with a criminal background. One Kripal Singh Parmar is stated to have indulged in the booth capturing of booth No.133 Jhingwan and pressed the button of the voting machine, next to the election symbol of the Respondent. in rapid succession. This was allegedly done at the behest of the Respondent. It is alleged that about 110 to 120 votes of the voters were polled by said Kripal Singh by pressing the button on the Ballot Unit, representing the Respondent in rapid succession. The information relating to the incident was given to the Petitioner by his polling agent Naval Kishore Yadav, son of Ratiram Yadav. The Petitioner reached the said polling booth by 4.00 p.m. He thereafter informed the Police and the Police party headed by a Sub- Inspector reached booth No.133 at around 4.15 p.m. Thereafter, the Petitioner through his election agent is stated to have made a 6 complaint to the District Returning Officer, Tikamgarh, by hand delivery as well as E-mail.
9. In paragraph 14 of the election petition, the Petitioner alleges that on 25.11.2013, the Respondent with the aid of her brothers-in-law Mr. Ravindra Singh Gaur and Govind Singh Gaur, allegedly got the fake polling done after capturing booth No.10 Rajpura, booth No.213 Nedhavali, booth No.211 Lamehra, booth No.79 Khera, booth No.97 Kharoh, booth Nos.17 and 18 Ghurakhas, booth Nos.23 and 24 Budor, booth No.9 Guda and booth No.1 Bhatghora. This was, according to the Petitioner, done with the consent and instructions of the Respondent. The modus operandi relating to the false voting is the same as has been mentioned hereinabove i.e. by repeatedly pressing the button of the EVM next to the hand symbol.
10. In paragraph 15, the Petitioner alleges that on 25.11.2013, an Aaganwadi worker by the name of Ms. Munni Dixit, managed fake polling of booth No. 2, Phoolpur, on behalf of the Respondent, by terrorising and influencing the voters. The Petitioner states that information relating to the aforesaid incident was reported by the election agent of the Petitioner at 3.45 p.m on 25.11.2013 to the District Returning Officer, Tikamgarh, both by way of written complaint as well as through E-mail. 7
11. In paragraph 16, the Petitioner has alleged that on 25.11.2013 at 1.00 p.m. Digvijay Singh @ Ammo Raja, the son of the Respondent, under her instructions, is stated to have threatened the voters of booth No.19 Mahendra Mahewa and compelled the voters to cast their votes in favour of the Respondent. Information relating to this incident is also stated to have been reported by the election agent of the Petitioner to the District Returning Officer at 4.15 p.m. on 25.11.2013, both by way of a written complaint as well as by E-mail.
12. In paragraph 18 of the election petition, the Petitioner has averred that after the polling, the Petitioner made a written report of the corrupt practices committed by the Respondent, to the State Election Commission and the Returning Officer on 27.11.2013 and sought for re-poll on as many as 20 polling booths. The Petitioner also alleges that the District Returning Officer of Tikamgarh took no action on any of the complaints made by the Petitioner. Thus, in short, it is the Petitioner's case that he lost the election of 47 Khargapur Assembly Constituency on account of the corrupt practices indulged by the Respondent by way of bribery and booth capturing and, therefore, has preferred the present election petition with a prayer to set aside the election of the Respondent.
8
13. Notice of the election petition was issued to the Respondent, who appeared and filed her reply. She has categorically denied all allegations pertaining to bribing of voters and capture of booths by her, her agent or family members or any other persons on her behalf or at her behest. In reply to para 11 of the election petition, she has specifically denied distributing money to the voters. In reply to para 14 of the election petition, the Respondent in para 12 of her reply, has categorically denied that on 25.11.2013, the Respondent with the aid of her family members, captured booth Nos.1, 9, 10, 17, 18, 23, 24, 79, 97, 211 and 213. In short, the Respondent has specifically denied the various instances of offering bribe to the voters or capturing booths and indulging in fake polling with specific references to the paragraphs of the election petition containing those allegations. ISSUES FRAMED
14. On 19.8.2014, this Court framed the following issues:-
Issue No. Issues framed Findings
1. Whether the Respondent and her
family members with her consent
bribed the voters of 47 Khargapur NO
Assembly Constituency for casting
votes in favour of the Respondent ?
2. Whether the Respondent and her
family members/ hired men with her
consent did the booth capturing of NO
polling booths of 47, Khargapur
Assembly Constituency and resorted
to fake polling ?
9
3. Relief and Cost ? Petition is
dismissed with
costs of Rs.
10,000/- awarded in
favour of the
Respondent
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
15. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, after having given a brief narrative of the dates and events leading to the elections, has submitted that the main allegations against the Respondent are stated in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Election Petition. These allegations have been summarised at paragraph 6, 7 and 8 supra. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the depositions of Rajaram Rai (PW 2) and Bhagwandas Lodhi (PW 3) in an attempt to establish that the Respondent had herself bribed voters in village Devardha. In addition to the statement of the witnesses referred to above, the Ld, Counsel for the Petitioner also refers and relies upon the depositions of the Petitioner (PW 1), Shobhat Lodhi (PW 4), Brijesh Kumar Mishra (PW 7) and Jagannath Lodhi (PW 5). PW 4 and PW 5 are eyewitnesses to the bribe being given by the Respondent to the witnesses and others in order to influence their vote in favour of the Respondent, as so stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Reliance has also been placed by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the deposition of Anirudhha Singh (DW 4) to corroborate his contention that the Respondent along with her 10 husband had gone to village Devardha about eight to ten days before the elections.
16. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that the reply filed by the Respondent has not been verified and therefore the same is not a reply in the eyes of the law. He has referred to sections 81, 82, 83 and 87 of the Act of 1951 to contend that the reply of the Respondent ought not to be considered as the same is not verified. This contention is summarily rejected as upon an examination of the reply filed by the Respondent, this Court finds that the reply has been supported by an affidavit which has been verified. Section 83(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 only mandates the verification of the Election Petition in the manner provided for under the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "CPC). Section 87 of the Act of 1951, provides for the High Court to follow "as nearly as may be" the procedure for the trial of a civil suit as laid down in the CPC. Even that, as per the Act of 1951, is "subject to the provisions of this act and the rules made thereunder". Thus, a conjoint reading of section 83(1)(c) and 87 of the Act of 1951, law is that the verification of the Election Petition by the petitioner in the manner prescribed for under the CPC is mandatory u/s. 83(1)(c) of the Act of 1951. The application of the CPC in the trial of an Election Petition is subject to the provisions of the Act of 1951. The use of the phrase "as nearly as may be" in section 87(1) of the Act of 1951, with regard to the 11 application of the CPC in the trial of an Election Petition, discloses the legislative intent that the CPC ought not to be applied pedantically, in derogation to the specific provisions of the Act of 1951. The application of the CPC is restricted only to the extent of providing broad guidelines to the Court trying the Election Petition. The CPC only plays second fiddle to the specific provisions of the Act of 1951 and comes into play only when the Act of 1951 does not specifically provide Thus, under section 83(1)(C), it is only the Election Petition which is required to be verified as per the provisions of the CPC and such a verification has not been mandated under the Act of 1951 to the reply/written statement filed by the Respondent. The purpose of verification is only a solemn affirmation by the deponent relating to the veracity of the contents of the averments in a pleading. In this case, there is an affidavit in support of the reply filed by the Respondent in which she has affirmed the veracity of the contents of her reply and that affidavit has been verified. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the reply of the Respondent ought not to be taken into consideration on account of its non- verification, is rejected.
17. The Petitioner has relied upon AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1549 -
G.M.Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, (2012) 5 SCC 511 - P.A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan and Ors, (2005) 4 SCC 480
- Kailash Vs. Nankhu and Ors., (2004)1 SCC 46 - Regu Mahesh 12 Vs. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev and Anr., and (1996) 3 SCC 624 - R. Puthunainar Alhithan and Ors., Vs. P.H. Pandian and Ors.,. All these judgments are on the law relating to the verification of the Election Petition and the effects of such non verification, on the Election Petition. None of the judgements are an exposition of the law relating to the non-verification of a written statement and its effect on the Respondent's case. These judgements have no application in the facts circumstances of the present case where the Petitioner is urging this Court not to rely upon the reply/written statement of the Respondent on account of its non- verification.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand states that the evidence adduced by the Petitioner are simply allegations of the witnesses having received money from the Respondent. He further states that the witnesses put forward by the Petitioner have acted bonafidely. He submits that if the witnesses of the Petitioner had indeed received money from the Respondent then they ought to have informed the police or the election authorities immediately, but they never did. He draws attention to the cross examination of PW 4 to show that the witness admits that it is unlawful to receive money as consideration for voting but does not inform the authorities. The Ld. Counsel has further argued that no witness has stated in support of Issue No.2, i.e., the capturing of the booths on election day. He has also submitted that the 13 statement of PW 7, the election agent of the Petitioner with regard to capturing of polling booths is completely based upon hearsay and therefore, the same is inadmissible. Finally, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that not a single piece of documentary evidence has been exhibited to establish that the Petitioner had made complaints to the election authorities with regard to the allegations of bribery and booth capturing, the story of the Petitioner is completely doubtful. He further states, that if such complaints relating to booth capturing and bribery were indeed received by the Election Commission, they would have enquired into it and given a finding. However, in this case only the Deputy Election Officer has been examined by the Petitioner as PW 6 and that too only to prove a complaint dated 27/11/13 preferred by the Petitioner to the election authorities. Under the circumstances, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and so the petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
19. The petitioner Rahul Singh Lodhi has examined himself as PW 1.
He has largely reiterated the averments made in the election petition. In paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief, the petitioner states that on 22.11.2013, the respondent is stated to have gone to 14 village Devardha along with her associates and allegedly gave 500 rupee notes to Rajaram Rai, Ramesh Shukla and Acchelal Lodhi. These persons were allegedly told by the respondent to vote on the symbol of congress party i.e. palm 'Panja'. The witness further states that at that point of time, one Bhagwandas Lodhi was also present at Devardha. Bhagwandas Lodhi is stated to have informed the petitioner over phone about the incident. After that, the petitioner says that he also received a call from witness Rajaram Rai. In paragraph 4 of his deposition, PW 1 states that on 23.11.2013, the Respondent and her associates distributed 500 rupee notes in village Surajpur. Shobhat Lodhi is cited by this witness as one of the recipients of this illicit largesse. It is further stated that there were three to four other persons present. He further alleges that the recipients of the bribe were told to vote for the symbol of Congress.
20. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, PW 1 has stated about the alleged booth capturing by Kripal Singh in order to ensure the victory of respondent. He states that on 25.11.2013, between 3 and 3.30 p.m., in the polling booth at Jhinguwa, a person with criminal antecedent by the name of Kripal Singh, captured the booth in order to facilitate the victory of the respondent. Kripal Singh he states is a person feared in the village and therefore, nobody objected to his actions. He further alleged that even the election officers did not stand up Kripal Singh. Kripal Singh is alleged to 15 have even chased away Naval Yadav, the election agent of the petitioner, namely from the polling booth. It is Naval Yadav who is stated to have informed the petitioner on telephone about the incident relating to the booth capturing by Kripal Singh. In paragraph 6 of his deposition, he states that after the polling was over, he had made a complaint to the election officer with regard to the above. A copy of this complaint is annexed to his election petition at page No.60. It is relevant to state that the said document has not been exhibited by the petitioner and therefore, has not been taken into consideration by this Court. In paragraph 7 of his deposition, PW 1 states that besides the above, in village Rachpura also, there was booth capturing. He states that this booth capturing may have been with the connivance of the respondent. Thereafter, the witness states that it was the Respondent, at whose behest the booth capturing took place. Besides this, PW-1 states that the booth capturing also took place at Medawali, Ramera, Khairau, Budhaur, Guda, Bhatghora and Mahendra Mahewa villages.
21. In village Mahendra Mahewa, PW 1 alleges that the respondent's son Digvijay Singh @ Ammo Raja indulged in booth capturing. He says that he received 50 votes and the respondent about 700 votes. Likewise, he says that at village Phulpur, he got about 50 to 55 votes and the respondent about 700 votes. In Phulpur, PW-1 states that a lady, who is an Aaganwadi worker by the name of 16 Munni Devi was sitting inside the polling station and influenced the polling. Likewise, PW 1 says that in polling centre Bhatghora, he received about 3 votes and the respondent received 480 votes. He states that in relation to the above incident, he had preferred complaints and the photocopies of the same have been annexed along with his election petition at pages 61, 62 and 63. The documents at page 61, 62 and 63 have not been exhibited by the petitioner in his election petition and, therefore, the same are not being taken into consideration by this Court.
22. In cross-examination, PW 1 admits that the Respondent did not distribute money to any of the above said persons in his presence. As regards the allegation made in paragraph 3 of his examination- in-chief that he has received telephone call from Bhagwandas Lodhi and Rajaram about the distribution of cash, this witness states that he has mentioned this fact to his learned counsel and if the same is missing in his election petition, he does not know the reason why. As regards the incident of distribution of cash at village Surajpur, PW-1 says that he got this information from Shobhat Lodhi. He says that if this fact is not mentioned in the election petition, he cannot state the reason why.
23. PW 2 is Rajaram Rai, who is a resident of village Devardha. In his examination-in-chief, this witness states that on 22.11.2013, at around 10.00 p.m., the Respondent had come to village Devardha. 17 He states that the respondent was canvassing for votes and that she gave him and his father Pyarelal 500 rupee notes. He further states that the respondent asked him to vote on the symbol of palm. This witness also states that on that day, PW 3 Bhagwandas Lodhi had come to visit them and was staying there. He states that the Respondent had given him and his father 500 rupee notes in the presence of PW 3 Bhagwandas. This witness does not corroborate the contention of PW 1 in paragraph 3 of PW-1's deposition to the effect that witness Rajaram Rai (PW 2) had informed PW 1 over phone about the incident. In his cross-examination, in paragraph 2, this witness admits that he personally knows PW 1 i.e. the election petitioner. However, he has denied the suggestion that he is the worker of Bhartiya Janata Party, or that he has worked or canvassed for the Bhartiya Janata Party in the election.
24. PW 3 is Bhagwandas Lodhi, a resident of village Khairo. In paragraph 1 of his deposition, he states that around 10.00 p.m. on 22.11.2013, the Respondent was distributing Rs.500/- notes to the villagers. He says that at that point of time, he was at village Devardha and that in his presence, the respondent gave Pyarelal Rai, Ramesh Shukla and Acchelal Rs.500 notes each. He further alleges that the respondent asked the villagers to vote for the palm. Lastly, in his examination-in-chief, he states that when the incident took place, he was at the house of PW 2 Rajaram. PW 3 Bhagwandas is not a natural witness, as he resides in village 18 Khairo. His presence at village Devardha on the date of the incident, is in the capacity of a chance witness as he had come to visit PW 2 Rajaram. In paragraph 3 of cross-examination, this witness categorically states that he does not personally know Rahul Singh Lodhi i.e. the petitioner herein and also PW 1. This statement of PW 3 flies in the face of statement of PW 1 in paragraph 3, where PW 1 states that the information relating to the distribution of notes on 22.11.2013 at village Devardha was informed by PW 3 Bhagwandas Lodhi, to the Petitioner (PW-1). This contradiction puts doubt on the transmission of the information relating to distribution of the notes on 22.11.2013 allegedly by the respondent to the petitioner, as Bhagwandas Lodhi (PW 3) denies knowing PW 1 personally. In such a situation, the contention of PW 1 that he was informed regarding the distribution of notes at Devardha by PW 3 comes under a cloud of serious doubt.
25. The statement of PW 3 Bhagwandas Lodhi, that a 500 rupee note was given to Acchelal at village Devardha, brings into doubt his testimony as Acchelal is the father of Shobhat Lodhi, who has been examined as PW 4. Shobhat Lodhi is a resident of village Surajpur and not Devardha. Thus, there would be a presumption that Acchelal Lodhi, the father of Shobhat Lodhi was also a resident of village Surajpur. Acchelal Lodhi has not been examined as a witness by the Petitioner to demonstrate that he was 19 in village Devardha on 22.11.2013 and that he received Rs.500 note from the Respondent which would have corroborated the statement of PW-3 Bhagwandas Lodhi.
26. PW-4 Shobhat Lodhi narrates the incident relating to 23.11.2013 which is stated to have taken place at village Surajpur. In examination-in-chief, this witness states that on 23.11.2013, one Surendra Singh and the Respondent arrived there at around 9.00 p.m. and gave 500 rupee notes to four persons. PW 4 does not name any of the recipients of the cash. This witness also does not state that his father Acchelal was in village Devardha on 22.11.2013 which may have corroborated the statement of PW-3 that Acchelal was a recipient of 500 rupee note. In last line of his deposition, the witness states that the respondent asked them to vote on the palm symbol and that the respondent had given him, Jagannath, Hira and Acchelal Lodhi Rs.500/- each. The fact that this witness has stated that Acchelal Lodhi received Rs.500/- at village Surajpur on 23.11.2013, flies in the face of the statement of PW 3 Bhagwandas Lodhi who states that Acchelal Lodhi was given Rs.500/- note by the respondent on 22.11.2013 at village Devardha.
27. PW 5 is Jagannath Lodhi. He is also a resident of village Surajpur and like PW 4, has stated that the Respondent came to their village 20 and gave him, Shobhat, Acchelal and Hiralal 500 rupee note each and asked them to vote on the palm symbol.
28. PW 6 is Shivpal Singh, was the Deputy Election Officer of Tikamgarh at the material point of time and also at the time of giving his deposition in Court. Pursuant to the summons issued to him, he has produced the record of the complaints received by him relating to 47 Khargapur Vidhan Sabha Constituency of the election held in the year 2013. As per the record with this witness, there was only one complaint that was received by the office of the Election Officer which is dated 21.11.2013. The said complaint was of the Petitioner and the original complaint was placed before the Court. This document is the letter dated 27.11.2013 which is marked as Document No.9 and annexed with the election petition, which was compared by this Court and found to be similar with that of the original. The counsel for the Respondent has also satisfied himself with regard to the similarity of the photocopy of the letter dated 27.11.2013 annexed along with the election petition with the original in the possession of the office of the Deputy Election Officer, Tikamgarh. This document has not been marked as an exhibit in the election petition. However, since the original of the said letter was produced before this Court and compared with document No.9, the said letter is being considered this Court as an exhibit.
21
29. The letter dated 27.11.2013 is at page 64 of the election petition.
The said letter is a complaint preferred by the petitioner to the Chief Election Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh. The complaint referred to the alleged irregularities which had taken place at 20 polling stations. In this letter, it was alleged by the petitioner that in three places, at the polling centres, the Police personnel had influenced the polling process. It is further alleged in the letter that in one of the polling booths, Town Inspector Mr. Pramod Chaturvedi is stated to have assaulted voters standing in the queue to vote. At another polling booth, another Town Inspector, Rajendra Singh Thakur, allegedly slapped the election agent of the Petitioner and abused him. In relation to village Jhinguwa, the Petitioner states that Kripal Singh, a recidivist, after consuming alcohol, sat in the polling centre and ensured voting till 5.00 p.m. in the evening. It is relevant to mention her that in letter dated 27.11.2013, there is not one word mentioned by the election petitioner with regard to the alleged distribution of 500 rupee notes by the respondent at village Devardha on 22.11.2013 and at village Surajpur on 23.11.2013. As per the deposition of the election petitioner i.e. PW 1, in paragraph 3 of his deposition he states that he got the information relating to the disbursement of 500 rupee notes on the same day from Rajaram and Bhagwandas Lodhi. The absence of allegation with regard to the disbursement of 500 rupee notes by the Respondent on 22.11.2013 and 23.11.2013 by the election petitioner in the letter addressed to the 22 Election Commission on 27.11.2013 puts under serious doubt the genuineness of these allegations.
30. PW 7 is Brijesh Kumar Mishra. He is stated to be the election agent of the petitioner. This witness is important. He being the election agent of the petitioner, states that on 25.11.2013, he spent the entire day in the election office of the petitioner and was receiving complaints from several persons. In paragraph 1 of his deposition, he states that around 2.30 p.m., he received information from Phulpur polling centre that Ms. Munni Devi Dixit was getting the votes polled in favour of the Congress candidate. He states that he immediately prepared a report of the complaint and E-mailed it to the Returning Officer. In paragraph 2 of his in-chief, this witness states that he got the information that no security personnel were present at the polling centre Rachpura, which is a highly sensitive polling centre and that all the supporters of the Congress candidate were getting the votes polled with gay-abandon. He also stated that the supporters of the B.J.P. candidates were being chased away from there. In paragraph 3, this witness states that after some time, he received information relating to polling centre Devpur that the Police was using force on the voters standing in queue on account of which the voters disbursed from there, and for almost 1-1/2 hrs., there was no polling. In paragraph 4 of his in-chief, this witness states that on the same day he received a complaint relating to polling centre 23 Bhatghora that, the brother-in-law of the respondent had captured the polling centre and that he was getting fake votes polled there. In paragraph 5, this witness states that he received information relating to polling centre Jhinguwa that an externed offender, by the name of Kripal Singh, had chased away the supporters of the B.J.P. from the polling centre saying that only the supporters of the Congress candidate can vote. In paragraph 6 of his in-chief, this witness states that likewise, he received information from polling centre Mahendra Mahewa that the supporters of the Respondent namely Ammo Raja, was getting fake votes polled in favour of the Respondent. In paragraph 7, this witness states that 10-15 minutes after the end of polling, this witness took the hard copy of the complaint that he had prepared to the office of the Returning Officer, District Collectorate, Tikamgarh and gave a hard copy of the complaint prepared by him to the Returning Officer and took the receipt of the same. None of the alleged documents given by this witness to the Returning Officer for which he is stated to have received a receipt, have been exhibited in this case.
31. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he did not go to any of those places from where he received information with regard to the irregularities being committed. He also states that he never produced any of the persons giving him the information relating to the irregularities, before the Returning Officer for recording their statements. From the statement of this witness, it clearly appears 24 that information relating to the alleged irregularities stated by him in his examination-in-chief are all hearsay by nature. The election petitioner has not examined any of those witnesses with regard to booth capturing or irregularities at the polling booth as witnesses in this trial. PW 2 to PW 5 are all witnesses relating to Issue No.1 i.e. the alleged act of bribing the voters. Evidence pertaining to the alleged capturing of booths and irregularity in the polling process are completely hearsay in nature, as is apparent from the evidence of PW 7, who further states that the information that he received was transmitted by him to PW-1 the election petitioner.
32. The respondent has examined herself as DW 1 and has categorically denied the allegation levelled against her by the election petitioner. DW 3 to DW 7 are her witnesses, who all state that there was no problem in the election process and the election took place smoothly on 25.11.2013. They also state that no money was offered by the respondent in order to bribe them to vote in her favour. These witnesses are from village Devardha and Surajpur. FINDINGS :
33. The allegation of corrupt practice in the electoral process has to be proved by applying the same standard of evidence that is applicable in a criminal case, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. The inherent contradiction and limitation in the statement of the witnesses for the Petitioner make these statements unworthy of 25 reliance and in light of the discussions already entered into by this Court hereinabove, are unworthy of reliance. The Petitioner has stated that he has made several complaints with regard to bribery and booth capturing by the Respondent to the election authorities. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him to prove those documents and also elicit from PW 6 the action taken, if any, on the complaints alleged to have been filed by the Petitioner. However, PW 6's statement is silent with regard to any action being taken on the complaint dated 27.11.2013, which is admittedly received by the office of Election Officer, Tikamgarh. Looking at the evidence in its entirety, far from proving the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence produced by the petitioner is unworthy of reliance as PW 2 to PW 5 have all parroted that they have received money from the Respondent and each one of them agrees that they did not report this incident to any of the authorities. Infact, PW 4, in cross-examination admits the suggestion that the distribution of money during the election is illegal and that he did not give information relating to the alleged act to the Kotwar or any other authority. The evidence adduced from the defence witnesses is just as unequivocal in their denial that any bribe was ever offered to any of them or that there was any irregularity with the electoral process. Under the circumstances, since the petitioner has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative by this Court.
26
34. As regards issue No.3, the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of relief and therefore, the said issue is decided against the Petitioner. Resultantly, the election petition is dismissed and a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) is imposed upon the petitioner, which shall be paid to the Respondent.
35. A copy of this order be placed before the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India.
(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, ou=P S, postalCode=482008, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=39687ae2c05d9fbaae8af68cd0db0f2d7 DATTA 2ea51435fe1da821e718b7963f8eeba, 2.5.4.45=0321009FFBC4775F25A882B8A623341 8905D27AA9BED4D5486CEF84C16DFB5884A7E 01, cn=ASHISH DATTA Date: 2018.06.29 10:49:16 +05'30'