Judgment

GUPTA, J.:- The appellant was one of the eight contestants from Mat Constituency No. 365 in District Mathura in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in 1974. February 24 and 26, 1974 were the dates when poll was taken and the result was declared on February 28, 1974. The first respondent who was sponsored by Bhartiya Kranti Dal, it will be referred to as B. D. hereinafter, was elected securing 33565 votes. The appellant who came next was a nominee of the Congress party; he polled 20731 votes, 12834 votes less than the successful candidate. On April 14, 1974 the appellant presented an election petition in the Allahabad High Court calling in question the election of the first respondent alleging that he was guilty of adopting corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The first respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations. The High Court held that the election petitioner had failed to prove the charge of corrupt practice alleged against the successful candidate and dismissed the election petition. The election petitioner challenges the correctness of the decision in this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. Certain principles governing election disputes are now well settled. One such principle is that proceedings arising out of election petitions are quasi-criminal in character and the allegations made in the petition must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Another is that in an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court except for very strong and cogent reasons. A third is that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking fro assurance from some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. (See Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, (1975) 1 SCR 643 (656).

3. Of the issues framed upon the pleadings of the parties, issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 only are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal. These issues are as follows:

(1) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents, workers and supporters, with his consent, promoted feeling of hatred between different classes of the citizens of India, particularly between Jats and Thakurs of the Constituency on the one side and other castes and communities on the other, for furtherance of the prospects of his election and thereby committed corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (3-A) of the Act?

(2) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents workers and supporters, with his consent, promoted caste feeling and appealed to the voters to vote or refrain from voting on the basis of caste and community for furtherance of the prospects of his election and thereby committed corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (3) of the Act?

(3) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents and workers, with his consent, directly or indirectly interfered with free exercise of electoral rights of the voters and committed corrupt practice of undue influence as defined in Section 123 (2) of the Act?

(4) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents and workers, with his consent, committed corrupt practice of bribery for inducing Muslim voters to vote for the respondent No. 1, by paying several thousands of rupees for construction of a school building and a mosque, as alleged in para 13 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the petition?

The first two issues are interconnected. The allegations relating to these issues are based on three pamphlets, Exhibits P. 20, P. 21 and P. 22, and oral evidence of meetings where speeches were delivered appealing to voters on the ground of caste and attempting to promote hatred between different castes. There is no reference, however, to these pamphlets, in the election petition. Of the pamphlets, Exs. P. 20 and P. 22 contain an appeal to all the residents of the constituency to vote for the