TUKARAM S. DIGHOLE versus MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 05-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 396 
T.UKARAM S. DIGHOLE 
v. 
MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE 
· (Civil Appeal No. 2928 of 2008) 
, FEBRUARY 5, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
c 
. R(]presentation of the People Act, 1951: 
ss.101(b), 101(d)(ii), 101(d)(iv) and 123(3) - Lok Sabha 
Elections ..:.:. Corrupt practice - Proof - Election of returned 
candidate challenged on the ground of communal· appeal· to 
electorate· -
VHS cassette stated to have contained the 
D speeches produced - HELD: A charge of corrupt practice 
envisaged by the Act is equated with a criminal charge and, 
therefore, standard of proof therefor is proof beyond 
reasonable doubt as in a criminal case - A heavy onus' lies 
on election petitioner to prove the· charge of corrupt practice 
E in the same way as a criminal charge - In the instant case, 
election petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove· that the 
cassette produced on record containing communal appeal' to 
electorate was a true reproduction of original speeches by the 
returned candidate or his agent - It has, therefore, not been 
F proved that the returned candidate was guilty of indulging in 
co"upt practices - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.74. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
ss. 3 and 7 4 - "Public document" - Cassettes - HELD: 
G Tape records of speeches are 'documents' as defined in s.3 
and stand on no different footing than photographs - Court 
must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record 
has not been tampered with - In the instant case, the Tribunal 
H 
396 
TUKARAM S. DIGHOLE v. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI 
397 
KO KATE 
has rightly held that in the absence of a cogent evidence 
A 
regarding authenticity of the cassette, the source and the 
manner of its acquisition, the cassette could not be read in 
evidence - Representation of the People Act, 1951 -
ss.101(b) and (d). 
8 
The appellant who, lost the Lok Sabha election, filed 
an election petition challenging the election of the 
respondent-returned candidate, primarily on the 
allegations that the respondent had made communal 
appeals to the electorate, and prayed that the election of c 
the respondent be declared as void u/ss. 101(b), 101(d)(ii) 
and 101 ( d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951 and the petitioner be declared as elected in terms 
of s.101 (b) of the Act. In support of his allegations, he filed 
a VHS cassette said to have contained the speeches 
0 
made by the respondent. The Election Tribunal dismissed 
the election petition holding that the election petitioner 
had failed to prove the allegations, as he did not produce 
any evidence to show that the VHS cassette filed by him 
was the true reproduction of the original speeches made 
E 
by the respondent. The Tribunal also did not accept the 
plea of the election petitioner that the cassette was 
obtained from the Election Commission and was a public 
document, and its mere production was sufficient and no 
further evidence was required to be adduced to prove as 
F 
to how the said cassette was obtained by him. Aggrieved, 
the petitioner filed the appeal. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
were: (i) whether the finding by the Tribunal that in the 
absence of any __eyjdeAce to show that the VHS Cassette 
G 
was obtained by the appellant from the Election 
Commission, the cassette placed on record by the 
appellant could not be treated as a public document is 
perverse and (ii) whether a mere production of an audio 
cassette, assuming that the same is a certified copy 
H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A issued by the Election Commission, is per se conclusive 
Q{ the fact that what is contained in the cassette is the 
~u.e and correct recording of the speech allegedly 
delivered by the respondent or his agent? 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal has rightly held that in the 
absence of any cogent evidence regarding the source 
and the manner of its acquisitiofl, the authenticity of the 
cassette was not proved and it could not be read in 
C evidence despite the fact that the cassette is a public 
document. No relevant material was brought to notice of 
the Court which would impel it to hold that the finding by 
the Tribunal is perverse, warranting interference. [Para 19] 
[411-8-D] 
. 
. / 
D 
/ 
1.2. A charge of corrupt practice, envisaged by the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 is equated with a 
criminal charge and, therefore, standard of proof therefor 
would not be preponderance of 

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