LexPRADIP BURAGOHAIN versus PRANATI PHUKAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 7 S.C.R. 888 PRADIP BURAGOHAIN v. PRANATI PHUKAN (Civil Appeal No. 5561 of 2008) JULY 7, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Representation of the People Act, 1951: c ss. 80, 100(1)(b) and 123(1) - State Assembly elections - Election petition, challenging election of returned candidate on grounds of corrupt practices of bribery - Dismissed by High Court - HELD: Standard of proof required for establishing a charge of corrupt practices is the same as is o applicable to a criminal charge - In an election dispute it is unsafe to accept oral evidence at its face value unless it is backed by unimpeachable and incontrovertible documentary evidence - As regards election petitioner's explanation for non-production of documentary evidence that election petition E was filed hurriedly to save the limitation, presumption would be drawn against him as per s. 114, Illustration (g) of Evidence Act ..:: There is no sufficient material to upset the judgment of High Court - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 11.4., Illustration (g). Maxim: Omnia praesumi.ntur contra spoliatorem - F Applicability of. The election of the respondent to the Assam Legislative Assembly held in Mar~h 2006 was challenged in an election petitiori before the High Court, by the '3 appellant, who lost to the respondent by a margin of nearly 20,000 votes. The grounds of challenge alleged were seven acts of corrupt practices out of which six were alleged to have been committed by the respondent at different places where the voters residing in the localities H 888 PRADIP BURAGOHAIN v. PRANATI PHUKAN 889 within the Constituency had assembled and th~ A respondent requested the gathering to t:ast their votes in her favour and gave Rs.500/- each to the voters present at the respective places. The seventh act of corrupt practice stated to have been committed by the respondent was that her party workers, with the help of the money B given by her, organized a feast on the date of the poll in the premises near a polling station within the Constituency; that she visited the said premises with her supporters, and inaugurated the feast. It was also alleged that the respondent invited the voters to the feast and c requested them to vote in her favour. The allegations were refuted by the respondent in her written statement. The High Court dismissed the election petition. Aggrieved, the election petitioner filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 From a conspectus of the pronouncements of this Court, three distinct aspects emerge that need to be kept in view while dealing with D an election dispute involving commission of corrupt E practices. Firstly, a charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal charge and has got to be proved beyond doubt. The standard of proof required for establishing a charge of corrupt practice is the same as is applicable to a criminal charge. This implies that a F charge of corrupt practice is taken as proved only if there is clear cut evidence which is entirely credible by the standards of appreciation applicable to such cases. [para 9) [898-A-C] \ Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap G Narain Singh and Ors. 1950 SCR 781 =AIR 1951 SC 120; Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed and Ors. 1975 (1) SCR 643 = (1974) 2 SCC 660; D. Vankata Redcjy v. R. Sultan and Ors. 1976 (3) SCR 445 = (1976) 2 SCC 455 and Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bi/as Jha and Ors. 1977 (1) SCR 741 = .H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 7 S.C.R. A (1977) 1 sec 260, relied on. 1.2. Secondly, in an election dispute it is unsafe to accept c>ral evidence at its face value unless the same is backed by unimpeachable and incontrovertible 8 documentary evidence. [para 10) [898-E] Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed and Ors. 1975 (1) SCR 643 = (1974) 2 SCC 660; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Ors. 1977 (1) SCR 490 = (1977) 1 sec 771; Dadasaheb Dattatraya Pawar & Ors. v. Pandurang Raoji C Jagtap & Ors. 1978 (2) SCR 524 = (1978) 1 SCC 504; and Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi & Ors. 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 581 = (1990) 2 SCC 173; and Thakur Sen Negi v. Dev Raj Negi and Anr. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 645 - relied on. D 1.3. The third aspect is that while as a court of first appeal there are no limitations on the powers of this Court in reversing a finding of fact or law which has been recorded on a misreading or wrong appreciation of the E evidence or law, it would
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.