Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. RW1 is Sri.Koshy Oommen. According to him, he does not know the 1st respondent personally but he knows her husband. He knew the 1st respondent as a news reader. He identified Ext.A2 photograph as that of Smt.Veena George. He deposed that his facebook account in his name is used by all his family members. The photograph appeared in the facebook during March, 2016. He had not exhibited the photo in the facebook. Later he found that the photograph was available in the facebook. According to him, his children might have put the photograph in the facebook account and he does not know for what purpose. In cross examination, he says that he is the managing committee member of Kottarakkara Punalur Diocese which comes under Orthodox Sabha.

18. RW3 is the 1st respondent. She had spoken in terms with the written statement filed in the case. She deposed that she was involved in student politics during her studies. She was a school leader twice and member of Student Federation of India (SFI) during her college studies at Government women's college. After Post Graduation, she worked as a journalist, and was a lecturer at Catholicate college for about two years. Ext. A3 is the English translation of the affidavit which she has filed in which she had given all the details of her assets and liabilities including that of her spouse. According to her, the account number shown in paragraph 3 of page 5 of the election petition does not belong to her husband and therefore she did not include the said account number in Ext. A3. The said account is in the name of her relative  Mathews P Jacob and his wife Helen Mary Mathews. She got the information about the account, when allegations were made in the election petition. She further deposed that she and her husband used to go for election campaigning in the house of the relatives. The election programs and campaigning are charted by the Left Democratic Front (LDF). Each day's program has been fixed and charted and the campaigning was done accordingly. She further deposed that on the previous day of election she has not done any public campaigning and she had not gone to Ullannur or Othera churches, as alleged in the election petition. She states that she had not gone to the said churches for campaigning whereas on the previous day of election she had gone to their family church, it being a special day. She had gone to the said church along with her husband as it was Pentecost day. She further deposed that she has a facebook account. She was invited to attend a program in the year 2014 by Malayalee Association. During that time she was invited to a nearby church in connection with the function relating to blood donation and the  photograph Ext.A2 was taken at that time. She further deposed that the photograph was uploaded in the Facebook account by a person named Siju in the year 2014 and she had not uploaded the same. She also denied the fact that Sri. Koshy Oommen had posted the photograph in a Facebook account as he had taken a stand against her in the election. In regard to Ext. A5 photograph she deposed that it was taken while she was standing on the public road, and the photograph which formed part of Ext.A5 was taken in the midst of a festival, during election campaigning. According to her, the photographs were not uploaded by her and it is not available in her Facebook account. In regard to Ext.A1, she deposed that she does not know who had published the same and she does not know an organisation by name Almaya Vedi. In cross examination she further deposed that though she is not a member of CPM, but the emblem was given by CPM. She deposed that among the account holders in Ext. X1 the third named person is George Joseph. The said account number is not shown in Ext. A3. She denied knowledge about the fact as to whether George  Joseph had deposited `9 lakhs on 7/7/2014. She admits that her husband is a partner in an optical shop at Palarivattom and Kalamassery. She denied having any collaboration with Yatheem group in regard to the conduct of the said shops. She admits that she is a member of the Sabha and she believes in Christian religion. In cross-examination she reiterates that Ext.A2 photograph had come to her notice after she received a copy of the election petition. It is stated that at the time of giving Ext. A6 she was not aware that Ext.A2 photograph was posted by Siju. She further deposed that she does not personally know Sri. Koshy Oommen and her photograph was posted without her knowledge or approval. She reiterates that she had not asked for vote by being a member of the Sabha. According to her if she had asked for vote on the basis of being a member of Sabha, majority of the other religions and factional members will vote against her. She further deposed that if she had campaigned as a member of Malankara Sabha, she would have lost the election as the Jacobite faction and the majority of the voters would have turned against  her. She denied knowledge about any organisation by name Almaya Vedi. According to her she was aware of the fact that no campaigning can be done in the name of religion.

29. In the nature of pleadings, initially it has to be considered whether 1st respondent is responsible for Exts.A1, A2, A5(a) and A5(b). Ext.A1 is a bulletin published by an organisation by name Almaya Vedi. Petitioner could not adduce any evidence to connect Almaya Vedi with the petitioner other than contending that the said organisation also supported the Sabha. Ext.A2 is a photograph of the 1st respondent obtained by the petitioner from facebook. The picture would show that there is a cross and a candle. Picture was taken inside a church. According to the respondent, the photograph was taken at Baharin much prior to the date of declaration of election and the photo was posted in the facebook account of a person by name Siju, followed by another person Koshy Oommen (RW1). There is no evidence to indicate that the 1st respondent had posted the said photograph. Apparently petitioner is not sure that the 1st respondent has  posted the said photograph as he contends that, it is with her consent that Sri.Koshy Oommen has posted A2 along with A5(a) and A5(b). Sri.Koshy Oommen is examined as RW1. According to him, he did not know the 1st respondent personally. He knows her husband. He knew the 1st respondent as a news reader. He deposed that facebook account in his name is used by all his family members. The photograph appeared in the facebook during March, 2016. He had not exhibited the photo in the facebook. Later he found that the photograph was available in the facebook. According to him, his children might have put the photograph in the facebook account and he does not know for what purpose. In cross examination, he says that he is the managing committee member of Kottarakkara Punalur Diocese which comes under Orthodox Sabha. His evidence does not indicate in any manner that he had posted those photographs with the consent of the candidate. In the absence of any evidence to connect 1st respondent with publication of A2, A5(a) and A5(b) in the facebook, it has to be assumed that posting of those  photographs in the facebook is not by her or with her consent. As far as Ext.A1 is concerned, it is a publication which indicates that the ruling Government was acting against the interest of Malankara Sabha. They have made a request to the believers to decide whether Malankara sabha should suffer the victimization for another five years. According to them, they do not want any illegal favours from Oommen Chandy (the Chief Minister) or from any one and the request is made for the persons of Malankara Christians to use the mandate for the sabha. Apparently, nothing is stated regarding the candidature of the 1st respondent in Ext.A1 nor there is a call for voting in favour of the 1st respondent. The crux of the article is that the Congress ministry which was the ruling front had acted against the interest of the Sabha and therefore they should not vote for the Congress.

30. The corrupt practice pleaded is on the basis that copies of Ext.A1 bulletin was being circulated by the first respondent and certain others along with Ext.A2 photograph. Ext.A2 is a photograph of the 1st respondent taken from the facebook of  AW2. As already indicated the photograph shows that the first respondent was delivering a speech by the side of certain books and a cross. Only a portion of the cross is visible. The contention of the petitioner is that as held by the Apex Court in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel (supra), cross is a symbol connected with Christianity. I have already opined that the said judgment cannot be taken as a decision on whether cross is a symbol of Christianity or not. But in general parlance, cross is considered to be a symbol of Christianity which alone has been stated by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that there are different types of crosses all over the world and therefore merely because a portion of the cross is seen in the photograph does not indicate that the request is made to vote on the ground of religion. As already stated there is no material in the case to indicate that 1st respondent had posted the photograph in her facebook account as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the photograph was posted by the 1st respondent for the purpose of election. In her evidence, RW3 has  clearly stated that she has not posted the photograph. Even otherwise, a photograph showing a candle and a cross by itself would not indicate that the 1st respondent was asking for vote on the ground of religious sentiments.