United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Gurmeet Singh And Others
! "# $ %
$
$ & '
()) $ $ *
) +$) )),,-- ./
* $ * )) ,
0
* $
)),,-- ./ "*$
* $ * )) ,
'
1#+
) " *
+2* !+
!"
#
$
%&
'
( )*+,--./"
0
! '
) 1
2
!
!4
! 7 "8,6"-)9:
6!
;
<
(
! ,99
1 #
= 5
& ! 7 "
>?"9)8+
!
7 ) #6
& @
!
4
4
!
1
@
6!
@
1
@
4
4
@ <
?
8) 98 89),
0
A
88 98 89),
3 @
3'
B'( 7 >> 8> 98 89),
7 )
1 8+, >>+ .8+ >9." '
) ) ( 7 )
1
!4
@
1
4
7 )
'
!
7 )
1 !4
@
"
! "# $% &
#
'
( ) ( *"
+,-".
/ 0
1 )
)/ 0
+ "
/ 0 & 2
( )
/ & 3 &4 >
A
4
;") A
;"8
@ 1 ( 0 <
?
A
;">
> ) ' 4
A
(;") !
8) 98 89),
6!
#CA (")&
> 8
( )*+,--./"
-D
4
!
7 )
.
!
!@
! 2
'
!
. )
'
7 )
" !
5 . 8
!
!
2
!
7 )
8
*
;"8
"A
"A
A
"
1
)
1
'
1 5 ) )
'
)
(
1 )
)
'
1 6
) 1
1
'
' ) 6
'
' '
,
1 )
7 #
1
8
1 )
% 1
9 '
1 )
) ,
'
1 ")
(
)
,
)
' ) %
5 ) '
# 1
9 '
1 5 )
)
1 1
'
:; <, ) 1 5 )
( , )
) )
:; <, )
1 )
1
'
' ) =
)
1 )
5
'
)
>1& )
' 1 )
5 )
1
) )
' '
>1&
'
' 1 )
1
<,
'
'
:;& 1 )
5 1 )
) '
1 ) 1 ' ????
;'
9
' @
'
,
'
0 ,
'
# 6 *
@
% 5 ! A&
";
' 9
'
@
'
,
B 0 ' (4 * 8 '
/ )+>
B'( 8> 98 89),
@
,99
8) 98 89), B'( 8> 98 89),
8))*
A
)8
* >
7 )
A
0
7 )
!
1
7
A
!
! ' 0
7 )
!
1
!
#1 & ' A "
"
< "A
CA ;8/
A "
"
;
A
!
1
!
!
1
' 0
7 )
! B'( '
" !
6 !
* .
4
CA (")/>>)
"
%
' )
'
4 * *
"A
1
7 8
@
7
!
' 0
! A
6!
8) 98 89), '
6!
A
6!
@
<
# &
,99
! A * -
!
"# $ % &'
"
!())*+,- (.) '
A
B'(
!
! * +
F!
/&0 '
"1!' '"&2 3%4 0 % %&'
"
,..5+6-(
!
* :
"
F!
3%'
! 4 !'
%' '" &
%!7& '& 7& '&% ,.()+-))8
A
2
A !
!
! !
* ,
'
C ):+8 A
1 >
A
"
$9
&:"
; CC ,
)
D ;
;
; 9!7 &:"
; CC ,
)
;
"
;
; 9&'7 &:"
; CC ,
)
4
* )9
2
A
!
!
A '
C ):+8
$%
$ %
$ %
!
2
!
!
* ))
! !
! !
!
* )8 1 )9) '
C ):+8
! A 1 )9>
!
* )>
/
!
!
!
! ! ! '
!
! !
! 2
!
!
!
# & * ).
F!
<+-'
&3= !:! %'3 "!
!> ! ,.,.+(-( @
(
F
A
"
?,. %
'
%
'
:
'E 1
'
F) 5
F
=
1
! !
-
# A
& )
) FAB 1
' '
' '
'
) % ) ) '
6 1
'
' )
) F
F
'
)
F ?,( % ) )
' % )
'
'
-# * * ) F
'
' '
' )
%
6" F
?,, % ;
F F
+ : , ) F+ F
&:"
F",
)
;
;
; F ?,*
'
; %
?,*( % )
; ?,*, 1 ;
?,8 ,
'
G9
# A
# )
B ($
. F% ; '
,
)
)
; )
; ,
)
%
;
) ) ' %
)
)
5 ) '
)
1
5 )
)
5
) '
)
)
'
E H
'
'
D
' -
H '
6" H 1
, :& 3+IH * )
'
'
)
1
'
'
3
) A
B
'
5
F ?,5 % )
'
6" ?,6 1 J @
$
FI % '
' ;
'
)
'
'
%
6
'
=
>
'
'
'
# F4 * )*
Ch. Razik Ram vs Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan And Ors. 1975(4) SCC 769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "15. Before considering as to whether the charges of corrupt practice were established, it is important to remember the standard of proof required in such cases. It is well settled that a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge. The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious, penal con sequences. It not only vitiates the election of the candidate concerned but also disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a considerably long time. Thus the trial of an election petition being in the nature of an accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasicriminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial.
Just as in a criminal case, so in an election petition, the Respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is leveled, is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. A grave and heavy onus therefore, rests on the accuser to establish each and every ingredient of the charge by clear, unequivocal and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
4 draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Nor does this definition insist on perfect proof because absolute certainly amounting to demonstration is rarely to be had in the affairs of life. Nevertheless, the standard of measuring proof prescribed by the definition, is that of a person of prudence and practical good sense. 'Proof means the effect of the evidence adduced in the case. Judged by the standard of prudent man, in the light of the nature of onus cast by law, the probative effect of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings is markedly different. The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a civil suit, may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action.
While in the former, a mere preponderance of probability may constitute an adequate basis of decision, in the latter a far higher degree of assurance and judicial certitude is requisite for a conviction. The same is largely true about proof of a charge of corrupt practice, which cannot be established by a mere balance of probabilities and, if, after giving due consideration and effect to the totality of the evidence and circumstances of the case, the mind of the Court is left rocking with reasonable doubt not being the doubt of a timid, fickle or vacillating mind as to the veracity of the charge, it must hold the same as not proved.
16. We have reiterated the above principles not as a ceremonial refrain of what has been said by this Court again and again but to emphasis their Importance as a guide in the matter. A court embarking upon an appreciation of evidence, without this rudder and compass, is apt to find itself at sea, mistaking every flotsam for shore, suspicion for proof and illusion for reality. Since these principles were not constantly kept in mind, the approach of the High Court in this case to the issues involved, and the treatment of evidence, appears to have gone awry. It is therefore, necessary to reappraise the evidence from the standpoint indicated above." * )- 0
A
!
5
/
2
C
2
'
!
'
2
;
!
2
!
2
'
!
!
!
! '
!
!
2
2
2
2
4 * )+
!
1
!
!
!
!
A
(
-
!
! + 2
'
:
( 78 + 2* !+
,'
" $
;
@ /
G/7 ;
!
G/7