JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This election appeal is directed against a judgment dated June 4, 1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant against the respondent. The present appeal arises out of an election to the Assembly Constituency No. 31-Jullundur Cantt. which was held on 31-5-1980 and the result of which was declared on 3-6-1980. Both the appellant and respondent No. 1 were the main rival candidates. The total votes polled from the constituency were 47650, out of which the appellant polled 19710 whereas respondent No. 1 secured 20128 votes, the margin being rather small, viz., 418.

2. The appellant sought to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 on various grounds consisting of corrupt practices committed by him (respondent No. 1), which according to the appellant, materially affected the result of the election.

3. The appellant, who is an Advocate argued his case with brevity and ingenuity and fairly conceded that he was not going to press all the allegations made in the petition but would confine his arguments only to the allegations pertaining to Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, to be referred to as the Act). In order to understand the ambit and scope within the confines of which the appellant has argued his case, it may be necessary to extract sub-section (4):-

"The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election."

In view of the concessions made by the appellant, the case lies within a very narrow compass. The allegations made by the appellant against the respondent consist of two categories :

(1) Speeches having been made by the respondent or his friends near about the time of the election and after the respondent was nominated as a candidate, which amounted to serious character assassination of the appellant by projecting him as a murderer of one Asa Ram, who died as far back as 1978.

According to the appellant, the respondent No. 1 carried out a villifying campaign to show that he (appellant) was directly connected with the aforesaid murder so as to wean away the votes of harijans of the locality and members of the Congress (1) party because Asa Ram was harijan and one of the supporters of Congress (I) party. In this connection, the allegations made may be classed under two separate categories :

(a) Utterances, speeches, news items and articles regarding the allegation that the appellant was directly connected with the murder of Asa Ram in 1978, and

(b) speeches and news items made and issued by respondent No. 1 on various occasions proximate to the date of the election.

(2) Similar acts committed by respondent No. 1 in close proximity to the election, i.e., sometime in May 1980.

4. After having gone through the evidence, statement of witnesses and the documents placed before us, we are unable to find any close connection or direct link between the imputations made against the appellant in 1978 and those made in 1980. In none of the documents produced by the appellant, which refer to the activities of the first respondent, there is the slightest possible hint that the appellant had anything to do with the murder of Asa Ram. Realising this difficulty, the appellant sought the application of the doctrine of inuendo. It is well settled that where this doctrine is applied, it must be clearly proved that the defamatory allegation was made in respect of a person though not named yet so fully described that the allegation would refer to that person and that person alone. Inuendo cannot be proved merely by inferential evidence whic