M. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO Vs. B. TRINATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election to the Andhra Pradesh legislative Assembly was sched(sic)d to take place on November 22, 1989. The counting of the votes to (sic)ce on November 26, 1989 and the present appellant original respondent was (sic)clared elected by the Returning Officer of No. 1. Ichapuram Assembly Constituency of Andhra Pradesh. Bie -election was challenged by the respondent here in original petitioner on certain grounds including corrupt practice as found in the election petition was as under:

(2.) THE learned Judge in the High Court raised three issues for consideration. The first was on the question whether the appellant herein caused through his agents, men and party workers exhibition of Annexures 2 to 28 at various places in No. 1 Ichapuram Assembly Constituency. So far as this question is concerned, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence tend(sic)d on behalf of the petitioner was not satisfactory to show that it was the appellant and/or his party workers who had pasted the posters at different places in the constituency. The learned Judge came to this conclusion because he could not rule out the possibility of the parliamentary candidate Dora and/or his workers having pasted the posters since the election to Parliament was also simultaneous. Issue No. 2, which is relevant for our purpose was in regard to the public meeting held at Ichapuram on November 12, 1989 for which the rostrum was erected with the posters referred to earlier. It was at this meeting that the appellant introduced the Telugu Desam leader N.T. Rama Rao as an incarnation of Lord Krishna and/exhorted the voters in the name of religion to vote for the Telugu Desam party if they desired prosperity. To support this allegation besides P.W. I. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 gave ocular evidence, their evidence was controverted by the appellant (R.W. 2) and the Secretary of the Telugu Desam Party (R.W. 1) who had accompanied N.T. Rama Rao to the election meeting. The learned Judge who had the benefit of watching these witnesses give evidence in Court undertook a critical scrutiny of their evidence and saw no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent -original petitioner through P.Ws.2, 4 and 6. Insofar as P.W. 6 is concerned the Court noted that he was an independent witness, a member of the Bar of Ichapuram, who had absolutely no reason to give evidence in favour of the defeated candidate or against the appellant or his party. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge concluded that it was safe to place reliance on the oral testimony of these three witnesses even though he noticed streaks of minor exaggeration here and there, which, in his view, did not affect the substratum of the story put forward by the respondent -petitioner. He, therefore, held issue No. 2 proved in favour of the respondent -petitioner and consequently invalidated the election of the appellant. It is against this order of the learned Judge dated September 3, 1991 that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) WE have carefully examined the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 on whose evidence the learned Judge in the High Court has placed considerable reliance. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri K. Madhava Reddy, for the appellant took us through the evidence of these three witnesses as well as the analysis of their evidence undertaken by the Trial Judge. He cautioned us against accepting such evidence by inviting our attention to the observations found in paragraph 21 of Rahim Khan v. : [1975]1SCR643 . In that paragraph this Court emphasised the danger of believing oral evidence in an election case without the backing of sure circumstances or indubitable documents. This Court pointed out that it would be easy to bring forward a witness to depose to a short story in regard to utterances in the election meeting and it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on their partisan evidence. It emphasised that the Court must look for a serious assurance before acting on such oral evidence. We are conscious of the fact that in an election case normally the evidence may be of partisan witnesses and it may, in a large body of cases, be unsafe to place implicit reliance on such partisan witnesses belonging to one political party or the other. Besides, a charge of corrupt practice being quasi -criminal in nature, the degree of proof required must be stricter than in a civil case. But in the present case we find that besides the evidence of the two election agents of the respondent -petitioner there is the evidence of P.W. 6, a wholly independent witness, who has no axe to grind and no reason to take sides. The evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 is corroborated by the independent evidence of P.W. 6. But that is not all. In addition to that there is the evidence of the fact that posters were prepared and distributed showing the Telugu Desam Party leader N.T. Rama Rao attired as Lord Krishna blowing a conch with a Shloka from the Bhagwad Geeta to the effect that the Lord Krishna will be born 'yuga yuga' to restore Dharma. At the bottom of the poster there is a caption in Telugu exhorting the people to defeat the deceitful congress which has sold the country. These posters belonging to the Telugu Desam Party are also to be round in Exh. A -24 although the writing in Telugu which we find in the enlarged posters, is not discernible. It must be appreciated that these posters of the party reader attired as Lord Krishna were intended to convey a definite message. If religion was not intended to be used for the purpose of capturing votes, it is difficult to see why a leader of a political party should be shown attired as Lord krishna blowing a conch at an election meeting. The existence of such posters lends credence to the evidence tendered through P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6. Therefore, besides the fact that P.W. 6 is an independent witness who has no reason to take sides his evidence finds support from the message intended to be conveyed through such posters. What that message is, is clear from the testimony of these three witnesses. The learned Trial Judge, who had the benefit of recording evidence of these witnesses and seeing their demeanour has for reasons stated, accepted their evidence and we see no serious infirmity in the appreciation of their evidence by the learned Judge. Their evidence clearly is that the appellant who addressed the gathering mostly of Hindus said that they were all Hindus and worshippers of Lord Krishna whose Avatar Rama Rao was and a vote for the Telugu Desam Party would bring prosperity. Thus the appeal was to the religious sentiments of the Hindus. This was buttressed by the posters showing the party leader as an Avatar of Lord Krishna. The purpose of such posters was obviously to gain votes by arousing the religious sentiments of the people. Why else should a leader of a political party indulge in such gimmickry, because admittedly it is not out of any of his movies. Such appeals to the religious sentiments of the people if allowed would destroy the purity of elections. So far as the evidence of R.Ws. l and 2 is concerned, it is clearly partisan evidence. On the question of the existence of the posters on the rostrum their evidence is evasive and halting. R.W. 1 being the party Secretary and R.W. 2 being the appellant himself the learned Trial Judge was disinclined to attach importance to their evidence having regard to its poor quality and preferred the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 particularly P.W. 6, an independent witness. As their evidence found support from the posters and the message conveyed by them the High Court though it safe to rely on their evidence in preference to that of R.Ws. 1 and 2. We are, therefore, of the view that the allegation made by the respondent -petitioner that the appellant respondent had addressed the meeting at which he exhorted the voters in the name of religion to vote for him is rightly accepted by the learned Trial Judge. It is also difficult for us to believe, as was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there was no reliable evidence to show that the appellant had addressed the meeting and introduced the party leader as an incarnation of Lord Krishna. It would sound unnatural that the respondent would not address the meeting arranged for canvassing votes for him and would not introduce the party leader in glowing terms.