Case: Thakur Virendra Singh Vs. Vimal Kumar

non-appearance and was told by the latter that he could not attend the Court since his brother was married to the niece of Vardiram (R.W. 30) and his appearing as a witness in the Court would strain his relations with Vardiram. In the course of his statement, Vardiram (R.W. 30, ), who is staunch worker of Jan Sangh and who appears to have worked for Jan Sangh and addressed public meetings in support of its candidates during the last general elections had to admit that his real nephew was engaged to the daughter of Rampratap. It is also significant that though Rampratap was also summoned as a witness by the appellant, the latter gave him upon December 12, 1973. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the non-appearance of Rampratap as a witness for the respondent was entirely due to his anxiety to maintain cordial relations with Vardiram. The totality. of the evidence adduced in the case, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P--10) at the meeting of the Jan Sangh Party held on the afternoon of March 5, 1972 in Shukr avariya Bazar, Khachrod, was with the consent of the appellant or his election agent, Anirudh Hada, advocate (R.W. 1). The distribution of the copies of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) at Nagda on March 6, 1972 also stands proved. by the direct evidence of Ram Singh (P.W. 21), Ajit Singh (P.W. 22), Shanker Singh (P.W. 23) and Jawahar Lal (P.W. 37).Ram Singh (P.W. 21) who besides being an employee of the Gwalior Rayon Mills is a newspaper hawker has stated that during the last general elections, he worked for Thakur Virendrasingh who was a candidate of the Jan Sangh party. He has further stated that two days before the date of voting, he distributed free of cost about 300 copies of leaflet (Exh. P-10) in which it was stated that Rajendra Jain was a meat eater, that he eats flesh and that the voters should know h im. The witness has unequivocally stated that it was the appellant who gave him the leaflets and asked him to distribute the same and told him that his remuneration for this job would be duly paid to him and that subsequently, Rs. 4/- were paid to him as remuneration for distributing the leaflets by the President of Nagda Nagar Jan Sangh Party. Although it has been emphasized by Mr. Hardy that the statement of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) cannot be relied upon as he is a staunch worker of the Congress organisation and is also a member of the Indian National Trade Union Congress which is a subsidiary institution of the Indian National Congress, it cannot be ignored that the Indian National Congress and the Indian National Trade Union Congress did not see eye to eye with each other in the matter of choice of the candidates for election during the last general elections. This is evident from the statement of appellants own witness, Vishnu Singh (R.W. 2) who has deposed that the Indian National Trade Union Congress supported Maheshchandra Lala who was an independent candidate.11. The statement of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) receives ample corroboration from the evidence of Shanker Singh (P.W. 23) and Jawahar Lal (P.W. 37) (who is a non-Congressman). These witnesses have clearly stated that one or two days before the date of voting, Ram Singh (P.W. 21) who is also a news- paper hawker distributed copies of leaflet (Exh. P-10) without any charge in Nagda in which it was inter alia mentioned that Rajendra Jain was a cow meat eater and during his trip abroad he stayed at the places where cow meat was served. Ajit Singh (P.W. 22) has also affirmed that about two days before the date of polling when he had gone to Nagda Mandi for shopping, he came across a leaflet wherein it was mentioned that "while Rajendra Jain was abroad, he stayed in hotels where cow meat was served and that he being a Jain, stayed in such hotels." Eve n if the testimony of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) which has been disbelieved by the High Court is excluded from consideration, even then there are some unimpeachable and telling pieces of circumstantial evidence to establish the distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) by the appellant or with his consent which cannot be easily ignored. These circumstances are-- (i) it was the-appellant who as already observed caused t he election leaflet (Exh. P-10) to be printed by Ramprasad (P.W. 24.) at the Kamla printing Press, Ujjain;-(ii) in the normal course of human conduct, no one gets any material printed without a purpose and in the instant case, the purpose manifestly was to malign the conduct and character of Rajendra Jain by distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) amongst the inhabitants of Khachrod Constituency, (iii) the selection of time and place for distribution of the leaf-let (Exh. P-10)) which openly denounced Rajendra Jain and cast aspersions on his personal character and conduct and appealed to the electorate not to vote for him. The offending leaflet was got distributed at a largely attended election meeting held at Khachrod to canvass support for the appellant where both the appellant and his election agent were present and at other places in Nagda which were frequented by the voters of Khachrod Constituency at a time when the tempo of the election campaign was at its climax, and (iv) the omission on the part of the appellant to prove that the leaflet (Exh. P- 10) emanated from a source which had no connection with the appellant or his election agent.Not only is the distribution of the offending leaflet proved to have been made by the appellant or his election agent or with their consent but it has also been proved by the unrebutted testimony of Rajendra Jain that the leaflet contained false statement of facts calculated to injure his personal conduct and character with a view to prejudice the prospects of his election.12.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is no doubt true that the respondent has not been able to produce Rampratap in proof of his allegation but it cannot be lost sight of that the former did summon the latter as his witness but he did not appear despite service the course of the statement made by him as his own witness, the respondent has explained that on Ramprataps omission to appear before the Court as his witness despite service, he contacted the latter to enquire about the reason for his non-appearance and was told by the latter that he could not attend the Court since his brother was married to the niece of Vardiram (R.W. 30) and his appearing as a witness in the Court would strain his relations with Vardiram. In the course of his statement, Vardiram (R.W. 30, ), who is staunch worker of Jan Sangh and who appears to have worked for Jan Sangh and addressed public meetings in support of its candidates during the last general elections had to admit that his real nephew was engaged to the daughter of Rampratap. It is also significant that though Rampratap was also summoned as a witness by the appellant, the latter gave him upon December 12, 1973. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the non-appearance of Rampratap as a witness for the respondent was entirely due to his anxiety to maintain cordial relations with Vardiram. The totality. of the evidence adduced in the case, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P--10) at the meeting of the Jan Sangh Party held on the afternoon of March 5, 1972 in Shukr avariya Bazar, Khachrod, was with the consent of the appellant or his election agent, Anirudh Hada, advocate (R.W. 1). The distribution of the copies of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) at Nagda on March 6, 1972 also stands proved. by the direct evidence of Ram Singh (P.W. 21), Ajit Singh (P.W. 22), Shanker Singh (P.W. 23) and Jawahar Lal (P.W. 37).Ram Singh (P.W. 21) who besides being an employee of the Gwalior Rayon Mills is a newspaper hawker has stated that during the last general elections, he worked for Thakur Virendrasingh who was a candidate of the Jan Sangh party. He has further stated that two days before the date of voting, he distributed free of cost about 300 copies of leaflet (Exh. P-10) in which it was stated that Rajendra Jain was a meat eater, that he eats flesh and that the voters should know h im. The witness has unequivocally stated that it was the appellant who gave him the leaflets and asked him to distribute the same and told him that his remuneration for this job would be duly paid to him and that subsequently, Rs. 4/- were paid to him as remuneration for distributing the leaflets by the President of Nagda Nagar Jan Sangh Party. Although it has been emphasized by Mr. Hardy that the statement of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) cannot be relied upon as he is a staunch worker of the Congress organisation and is also a member of the Indian National Trade Union Congress which is a subsidiary institution of the Indian National Congress, it cannot be ignored that the Indian National Congress and the Indian National Trade Union Congress did not see eye to eye with each other in the matter of choice of the candidates for election during the last general elections. This is evident from the statement of appellants own witness, Vishnu Singh (R.W. 2) who has deposed that the Indian National Trade Union Congress supported Maheshchandra Lala who was an independentstatement of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) receives ample corroboration from the evidence of Shanker Singh (P.W. 23) and Jawahar Lal (P.W. 37) (who is a non-Congressman). These witnesses have clearly stated that one or two days before the date of voting, Ram Singh (P.W. 21) who is also a news- paper hawker distributed copies of leaflet (Exh. P-10) without any charge in Nagda in which it was inter alia mentioned that Rajendra Jain was a cow meat eater and during his trip abroad he stayed at the places where cow meat was served. Ajit Singh (P.W. 22) has also affirmed that about two days before the date of polling when he had gone to Nagda Mandi for shopping, he came across a leaflet wherein it was mentioned that "while Rajendra Jain was abroad, he stayed in hotels where cow meat was served and that he being a Jain, stayed in such hotels." Eve n if the testimony of Ram Singh (P.W. 21) which has been disbelieved by the High Court is excluded from consideration, even then there are some unimpeachable and telling pieces of circumstantial evidence to establish the distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) by the appellant or with his consent which cannot be easily ignored. These circumstances are-- (i) it was the-appellant who as already observed caused t he election leaflet (Exh. P-10) to be printed by Ramprasad (P.W. 24.) at the Kamla printing Press, Ujjain;-(ii) in the normal course of human conduct, no one gets any material printed without a purpose and in the instant case, the purpose manifestly was to malign the conduct and character of Rajendra Jain by distribution of the leaflet (Exh. P-10) amongst the inhabitants of Khachrod Constituency, (iii) the selection of time and place for distribution of the leaf-let (Exh. P-10)) which openly denounced Rajendra Jain and cast aspersions on his personal character and conduct and appealed to the electorate not to vote for him. The offending leaflet was got distributed at a largely attended election meeting held at Khachrod to canvass support for the appellant where both the appellant and his election agent were present and at other places in Nagda which were frequented by the voters of Khachrod Constituency at a time when the tempo of the election campaign was at its climax, and (iv) the omission on the part of the appellant to prove that the leaflet (Exh. P- 10) emanated from a source which had no connection with the appellant or his election agent.Not only is the distribution of the offending leaflet proved to have been made by the appellant or his election agent or with their consent but it has also been proved by the unrebutted testimony of Rajendra Jain that the leaflet contained false statement of facts calculated to injure his personal conduct and character with a view to prejudice the prospects of his election.