BIRBAL SINGH versus KEDAR NATH SHARMA

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i , 
-I 
' 
> 
BIRBAL SINGH 
v. 
KEDAR NATH SHARMA 
November 2, 1976 
[Y. \1. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sec. l23(4)-Corr11p1 Practice-
Publishing fa/Je and defamatory Pamphlets & editorial approach in appreciating 
oral evidence about commission of cormpt practice in election petition 
Evidence Act, 1872-Testimony of i11terested witnesses 
whether 
can 
be 
reiected out right. 
In the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections held in March, 1972, the 
respondent defeated the appellant by a margin of over 
22000 
votes. 
The 
appellant filed an election petitio_n in the Rajasthan High Court chall:nging the 
election of the respondent allegmg that the respondent and his elccuon agent 
committed the following corrupt practices. 
(1) 
, (~) 
A pamphlet containing defamatory and false statements touching 
the personal character of the appellant was distributed by the res-
pondent and his election agent in a meeting on 23 ·2-72 at Nehm 
Park. 
Several copies of a weekly newspape1 called Pata] Shakt1 
dated 
27-2-1972 containing a scunilous editorial were distributed by the 
respondent and his eloction agent at a meeting of the Socialist Party 
held at Public Park on 27-2-1972. 
The High Court dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant. 
The 
A 
B 
c 
D 
High Court discarded the evidence of the appellant's witnesses on the ground 
E 
that they were interested witnesse~. 
This Court by consent of parties remitted the following two additional issues 
to the High Court with liberty to the parties to lead evidence on those issues. 
( l) Whether the pamphlet was printed at the instance and with 
the 
consent of the respondent and whether the payment for that pam-
phlet wa~ made by his election agent ? 
( 3) Whether the editorial in Pata! Shakti was read over in the meeting 
of 27-2-1972 by Vijay Kumar Talwar in the presence of the res-
pondent. 
The High Court after remand held in favour of the respondent on both the 
issues. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal under section 116A of the Representation of 
the 
People Act, 1951, 
' 
G 
HELD : 1. It is matter of common occurrence in election petitions that parties 
manage to collect a large volnme of oral evidence in support of allegations of 
corrupt practice. 
Very often, the allegations are connected and arc attempted 
to be established with the evidence of partisan witnesses, 
On rare occasions 
when the allegations are true, .untrue evidence is led to strengthen the charges. 
[4D-E] 
2. The High Court should not have brushed aside the eviJence of 
the 
H 
appellant's witnesses merely on the ground that they belong to the same party 
as the appellant or that they were otherwise interested i11 his succe's 
in 
the 
2-l458SCI/76 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 
election. 
Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though the 
fact that the witness has a personal interest or stake in the matter must put the 
court on its guard. 
The evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to a 
cl~ser scrutiny a.nd. the Court may in a given case be justified in rejecting that 
evidence unless 1t 1s corroborated from an independent source. The reasons for 
corroboration must arise out of the context and the texture of ~vidence. Even 
interested witnesses may be interested in telling the trnth to the Court and, there-
fore, the Court must assess the testimony of each important witness and ind"i-
cate its reasons for accepting or rejecting it. At broad and general comment that 
a particular witness is an election agent of a candidate cannot therefore 
be 
relied on is not a judicial assessment of evidence. 
Evidence can be assessed 
only after a careful analysis. 
[4F-H] 
3. Since the High Court rejected the evidence of the appellant on the omni-
bus ground that the witnesses were interested, this Court went throush the rele-
vant evidence and on a consideration of that evidence came to conclusion that 
it is impossible to accept the allegations of corrupt practice made against the 
respondent. [5A-B] 
4. The allegations that the respondent and his agent distributed the pamphlet 
in the meeting held at the Nehru Park was disbelieved by this Court en the 
following grounds : · 
(a) 
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 
(e) 
The rnteting was addressed by the Prime Minister and over a lac 
of people were present. It is fantastic to think that in a meeting 
called by the rival party which was so largely attended the respon-
de

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.