BORGARAM DEURI versus PREMODHAR BORA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 05-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BORGARAM DEUR! 
A 
v. 
PREMODHAR BORA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 5, 2004 
[V. N. KHARE, CJ AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, /9jl~Sections 123(3), 123(3A) and 
83-Eleclion petilion-Allegations of corrupt praclice-Spreading hatred on 
communal basis-High Court holding that charges not proved beyond C 
reasonable doubt-Correctness of-Held: Allegations of corrupt practice must 
be pleaded strictly in lerms of Section 83 and proved beyond all reasonable 
doubt-Election petilioner failed to prove charges of corrupt practice against 
re/urning candidate by adducing reliable and credible evidence-Hence order 
of High Courl justified. 
Legislative Assembly Elections were held and from one of the 
constituencies, the first respondent was declared elected. Appellant filed 
election petition alleging corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) and 
123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act against respondent No. I. 
D 
It was alleged that in various meetings respondent No. I and his agents 
delivered speeches before the gathering appealing them to vote for E 
respondent No.I and refrain from voting in favour of petitioner as he 
belonged to scheduled tribe community. High Court analyzing the evidence 
on record held that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt 
and dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court erred in observing that F 
charge of corrupt practice was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that 
the High Court even did not refer to the news item published in the 
newspaper which would prove the contents of the speech delivered by 
respondent No. I wherein the speakers asked the voters not to cast their 
votes in favour of the appellant which was made to spread hatred against G 
members of a Scheduled Tribe amounting to corrupt practice; and that 
the interestedness of a witness cannot its.elf be a ground to disbelieve him 
as certain witnesses may also be interested in speaking the truth. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
103 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: I. The allegations of corrupt practice must conform to the 
provisions confained in Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951. It must be pleaded strictly in term~ of Section 83 
of the Act and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The allegations of 
corrupt practices are considered to be quasi-criminal in nature. The 
B standard of proof required for proving corrupt practice for all intent and 
purport is equated with the standard expected in a criminal trial. The 
difference between an election petition and a criminal trial is, whereas an 
accused has the liberty to keep silence, during the trial of an election 
petition the returned candidate has to place before the Court his version 
and to satisfy the Court that he had not committed the corrupt practice 
C as alleged in the petitiQn. The election petitioner must disclose the source 
of his information in the election petition fully. His burden can be said to 
have been discharged only if and when he leads cogent and reliable 
evidence to prove the charges levelled against the returned candidate. The 
charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by 
preponderance of probabilities as in civil action. 1110-A-CI 
D 
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and Anr. v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and Ors., 
AIR 119951 SC 2284; Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors., 119851 I 
SCR I 059; R. P. Moidutty v. P. T. Kunju Mohammed and Anr., 1200 I] I SCC 
481 and Mercykutty Amma v. Kadavoor Sivadasan and Anr., 120031 AIR 
E sew 6306, relied on. 
2. In the instant case, the witnesses examined by the appellant-
elcction petition1!r in support of his allegation was found to be unworthy 
of any trust by, the High Court. No independent witness from the village 
had been examined by the election petitioner. Spreading of hatred on 
F communal basis is an offence, but the appellant did not lodge any First 
Information Report and no contemporaneous documentary evidence was 
brought on record. The contents of the news item was not proved by 
examining the reporter, the same could not have been exhibited legally 
on the statement of the witness that the report had been published in the 
G 
newspaper. Therefore, was inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise the 
manner iu which the alleged corrupt practice has taken place does not 
inspire confidence. Also the listed witness had not been examined. The 
na

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