RAM SINGH & ORS. versus COL. RAM SINGH

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 07-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

399 
RAM SINGH & ORS •. 
A 
v. 
COL. RAM SINGH 
AUGUST 7, 1985 
[S· 1'1\JRTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI HUKHARJI JJ.j 
B 
Representation of the People Act 1951: Corrupt Practice -
How should be·proved. 
Evidence Act -
Tape recorded statement3 -
When could be 
.used as evidence -
Safeguards to be taken in using tape recorded 
C 
evider..ce. 
In the general election to the State Assembly held in 1982 
the appellants a.pd the respondents were the candidate•.-
The 
respondent was 
declared elected to the Assembly. 
In their 
election petition, the appellants alleged that the respondent was 
D 
guilty of corrupt practice and booth capturing in that he went to 
two polling booths alongwith 50 to 60 persons, armed with guns, 
sticks and swords, threatened and pressurised the voters and as a 
result of the serious threats held out by the respondent and his 
men the voters ran away without exercising their franchise; that 
the respondent and his companfons entered the. polling booths and 
terrorised the Polling Officer and polling agents•. assaulted the 
E 
polling agents at gun point, snatched away the ballot papers and 
marking them in the respondent's favour, cast the votes in the 
ballot boxes and thumb marked the counter foil of ballot papers. 
They sought a declaration that the respondents election was void 
under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1951. A 
large number of witnesses were examined by both sides. The Deputy 
F 
Comnissioner who was the Returning Officer of the constituency 
recorded on a tape recorder the statements of some persons 
iucluding the polling agents, 
the Polling Officer and 
the 
respo~ent and of himself. 
The High Court held that the evidence of the witnesses and 
G 
the petitioners on these points was not corroborated, no effort 
was made by the petitioners to connect the 
respondent with the 
ownership of vehicles purported to have been used by him, that 
the witnesses were drawing more upon their imagination to make 
out stories about the detention of the persons and forcible 
polling at that polling station by the respondent and that the 
P 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
petitioners failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 
The court also held that the role assigned to the respondent by 
the petitioners has not been proved. 
Dismissing the appeal 
HEW: [Per Fazal Ali J, Sabyasachi Mukharji J concurring 
and Varadarajan J dissenting] The appellants have failed to prove 
their case that the respondent was guilty of indulging in corrupt 
practices. [446 Fj 
Clear and specific allegations with facts and figures 
regarding the corrupt practices indulged in by the respondent 
have not been alleged in the first part of the election petition. 
The 
petitioners should have given definitive and specific 
allegations regarding the nature of fraud or the corrupt 
practices conmitted by the respondent as briefly as possible in 
the main part of the petition. [407 E-F] 
· The appellants have not established that the respondent was 
present at the time of the incidents at the two booths. Once this 
is not proved, the appellants have failed. It is settled law that 
corrupt practices must be cOC!'litted by the candidate or his 
polling agent or by others with the implicit or explicit consent 
of the candidate or his polling agent. 
Where the supporters of 
the candidate indulged in corrupt practices on their own, without 
the authority from the candidate the election cannot be voided, 
and this factor is conspicuously absent in this case. 
It is 
also settled law that the charge of corrupt practice has to be 
proved by convincing evidence and not merely by preponderance of 
probabilities. As the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature 
of a criminal charge, it is for the party who sets up the plea of 
undue influence to prove it, to the hilt and the manner of proof 
should be the same as in a criminal case. [445 F-H] 
As regards the evidence recorded on a tape Recor,per or 
other mechanical process the preponderance of authorities is in 
favour of the admissibility of the statements subject to certain 
safeguards viz., (l) the voice of the speaker must be identified 
by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. 
· Where the voice is denied by the maker it will require very 
strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice 
of the speaker. (414 EJ 
(2) The voice of the speaker sh

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