JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This election petition has been filed under Section 80-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 read with Article 327(B) of the Constitution of India challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 to the Arunachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from 20- Tali (ST) Constituency. The petitioner was nominated by the Indian National Congress Party (INC) for contesting the election from the said constituency. The respondent No. 1 was nominated by the Peoples Party of Arunachal Pradesh (PPA in short). The election petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were the only two candidates in the fray. The total votes polled, polling station-wise, constituency and party-wise in two circles of the said constituency are as follows: A. under Tali Circle: Sl. No. Name of Polling Stations INC PPA 1 Giba 40 373 2 Guchi 12 289 3 Gimba 76 128 4 Dotte 1 204 5 Tungmar 53 347 6 Roing 3 697 7 Lengi-Yarda 72 300 8 Homi 112 337 9 Tali HQ 185 416 10 Ruhi 1 1196 Total 555 4287 B. Pipsorang Circle: Sl. No. Name of Polling Stations INC PPA 1 Zara 335 7 2 Keba 346 1 3 Niobia 365 0 4 Karsang 62 87 5 Tedung 361 5 6 Pipsonrang HQ 73 64 7 Richik 42 357 8 Raha 146 234 9 Korapu 110 70 10 Lukbia 151 118 Total 1991 943 2546 5230 Postal ballot 2 33 Grand Total 548 5261 Grand Total (I+II) = INC-2548 PPA-5361 =7809 Heard Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioner and Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner alleges that on the day of poll the workers of the PPA candidate (respondent No. 1), with his consent committed election offence by capturing booths in 8 polling stations under the Tali Circle. In 7-Roing Polling Station under Tali Circle no election was held on 13.10.2009 as the polling team with Electronic Voting Machines (EVM in short) was kidnapped by the PPA workers headed by Sri Gichik Kiogi Thaji on the night of 12.10.2009. Sri Gianiu Tallo INC Polling agent of Roing polling station and Sri Tami Tayak, President of NSUI, Kurung Kumey District reported the incident on 13.10.2009 addressing letters to the Executive Magistrate, Tali requesting him to take necessary action. Sri Gianiu Tallo INC Polling agent of Roing polling station and Sri Tami Tayak, President of NSUI, Kurung Kumey District reported the incident on 13.10.2009 addressing letters to the Executive Magistrate, Tali requesting him to take necessary action. On the next day i.e. 14.10.2009 Sri Rigam Santana, General Secretary of Tali Block Congress Committee, Sri Tami Tayak, President NSUI Kurung Kumey, Shri Rigio Tashok, Shri Yukar Tara, President NSUI, Tali, Sri Tagio Yashok, ZPM, Tali jointly submitted a representation to the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO in short) about the said incident requesting him for repoll of 20- Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. Sri Gichik Tago polling agent of 7-Roing Polling Station and Sri Gichik Tachu jointly submitted another representation to the said ARO on 13.10.2009 demanding repoll etc. Repoll was demanded as the genuine voters could hot exercise their franchise due to booth capturing. At 2-Ruhi Polling Station, as alleged in the election petition, some miscreants including Sri Markio Tado, PPA candidate himself indulged in booth capturing and single-handed casting of votes as a result of which the INC candidate (petitioner) was shown to have secured only one vote as against 1196 votes secured by the PPA candidate. The common voters were threatened to their lives by the miscreants of PPA candidate and not allowed to cast their votes. This incident was reported by the INC polling agent Sri Tamuk Talu of Tamuk Village to the ARO of 20- Tali (ST) constituency on 14.10.2009 demanding repoll. It is alleged that similar booth capturing took place at 5-Guchi polling station. The INC polling agent Sri Dangur Tadek reported the matter to the said ARO on 13.10.2009 demanding repoll and necessary action. The polling agents of 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling station jointly reported the incident of booth capturing to the said ARO in the aforesaid polling stations by addressing a representation dated 15.10.09. The petitioner himself also reported the said incident of booth capturing at the said polling station through fax message dated 15.10.2009 addressed to the Returning Officer (RO in short) of 20- Tali (ST) Assembly constituency, Koloriang with request for repoll. 3. Besides the above three polling stations, similar nature of booth capturing and criminal intimidation took place in 5(Five) other poling stations viz (1) 10-Yarda (2) 8-Dotte (3) 6-Giba (4) 4-Tungmar (5) 15-Richik polling stations. 3. Besides the above three polling stations, similar nature of booth capturing and criminal intimidation took place in 5(Five) other poling stations viz (1) 10-Yarda (2) 8-Dotte (3) 6-Giba (4) 4-Tungmar (5) 15-Richik polling stations. The incident of booth capturing took place in all the 8 polling stations under Tali Circle by the workers of PPA candidate Sri Markio Tado with his consent. It is alleged that the presiding officer of the said 8 polling stations, under duress, submitted their poll diaries to the R.O. without reflecting the actual incident that had taken place in the respective polling stations. A statement showing the name of 8 polling stations and the person under whose leadership the above noted booth capturing took place depriving the genuine voters of their right of franchise through intimidation, has been furnished. For convenience and ready reference the same is quoted from the petition hereunder: Sl. No. Name and no. of polling stations Name of voters/ persons who has cast whole votes in place of other voters Total voters Total vote cast in favour of INC Total vote cast in favour of PPA by booth capturing Remarks 1. 10-Yarda Shri Yarda Tayo S/O. Sri Yarda Kiokam Village-Yarda 378 72 300 - 2. 7-Roing 1. Shri Yora Palang S/O. Lt. Yara Tana Village-Lodokore 2. Shri Thaji Gichik Kiogi S/O. Lt. Gichik Talla Village-Sadok 3. Shri Yora Taha Village-Lodokore 692 3 697 - 3. 02-Ruhi 1. Shri Markio Tado S/O. Lt. Markio Tagi Village-Ruhi 2. Shri Mui Aman S/O. Lt. Mui Tai A/T(SSA), Govt. ME School, Village-Ruhi 3. Shri Mui Tai S/O. Lt. Mui Tada A/T(SSA), Govt. ME School, Village-Ruhi 4. Shri Tagiu (Tagio) Taniang S/O. Lt. Tagiu Take Village-Sartam 1210 1 1196 4. 8-Dotte Shri Tagru Tasha (Kasha) S/O. Shri Tagru Tayar A/T(SSA), Govt. ME School, Dotte Village – Dotte 206 1 204 - 5. 6-Giba 1. Shri Tagru Tarang (Niglap) S/O. Lt. Tagru Tade Village – Nyado 2. Shri Tagru Tachuk(Dochuk) S/O. Lt. Tagru Tatam Village – Niomi 431 40 373 - 6. 5-Guchi 1. Sri Dakme Tarak S/O. Lt. Dakme Tadik Village-Guchi 2. Shri Dangu Taro (Tara) S/O. Lt. Dangu Tajum Block Dev. Officer, Hunli Lower Dibang Valley Dist. Village-Guchi 315 12 289 - 7. 4-Tungmar Shri Tatung (Marbam) Tago S/O. Shri Tatuna President - All Kurung Kumey District Students Union (AKKSU) Village – Tungmar 410 53 347 - 8. 15-Richik 1. 5-Guchi 1. Sri Dakme Tarak S/O. Lt. Dakme Tadik Village-Guchi 2. Shri Dangu Taro (Tara) S/O. Lt. Dangu Tajum Block Dev. Officer, Hunli Lower Dibang Valley Dist. Village-Guchi 315 12 289 - 7. 4-Tungmar Shri Tatung (Marbam) Tago S/O. Shri Tatuna President - All Kurung Kumey District Students Union (AKKSU) Village – Tungmar 410 53 347 - 8. 15-Richik 1. Shri Songio Taba S/O. Shri Songio Tagun Village-Songio 2. Shri Songio Taw S/O. Lt. Shri Songio Tanang Village-Songio 3. Shri Rigio Tapa S/O. Lt. Riogio Tada village-Gyapin 4. Shri Rigio Takung S/O. Lt. Rigio Takia Village-Gyapin 560 42 357 - Total 4202 224 3763 - 4. In the election petition the petitioner made the following prayers: (i) Call for the records of registration of voters, counter foils (Form 17-A of those 8 polling stations described in the statements made in paragraph 7). (ii) EVMs of those 8 polling stations. (iii) Records relating to 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. (iv) Declare as illegal those votes cast by booth capturing in 8 polling stations in favour of returned candidate Markio Tado. (v) Declare void the order dated 22.10.09 whereby returned candidate Sri Markio Tado, was declared duly elected to fill 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. (vi) Declare Shri Takam Sorang, the petitioner as elected candidate for the said 20-Tali(ST) Assembly Constituency. 5. A joint written statement has been filed by the respondents on 25.2.2010 denying all the allegations brought by the election petitioner in the election petition. It has been pleaded that the election was conducted fairly and peacefully and there was no booth capturing, rigging etc. The allegations are baseless and false inasmuch as the election petitioner manufactured, fabricated and forged documents after the election result was declared. The respondent No. 1 was declared elected from 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency by a margin of 2713 votes and there was no irregularity and illegality in the election of respondent No. 1. The respondents have also questioned the maintainability of the election petition both on question of facts as well as on question of law inasmuch as there is no merit at all and the entire contents of the petition are bundle of false allegations based on fabricated documents prepared in support of the election petitioner. 6. On consideration of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the election petition is maintainable in its present form? 6. On consideration of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the election petition is maintainable in its present form? (2) Whether the polling team of 7-Roing polling station along with EVM were kidnapped by the PPA workers headed by one Sri Gichik Kiogi Taji in the night of 12.10.2009 and as a result of which, whether practically no election was held in the said polling station? (3) Whether any election offence of booth capturing was committed at 2-Ruhi and 5-Guchi polling stations on the date of polling on 13.10.2009 by Sri Markio Tado and his party workers by casting the votes single-handedly? (4) Whether any offence of booth capturing and criminal intimidation was committed at 5-(five) other polling stations namely-(1) 15-Richik (ii) 10-Yarda (iii) 8-Dote (iv) 6-Giba and (v) 4-Tungmar, by the persons named in column-3 of the statement against each polling station as mentioned in paragraph-7 of the Election petition? (5) Whether Annexures 1 to 9 to the election petition are forged, fabricated, manufactured and afterthought for the purpose of filing the election petition? (6) Whether election of returned candidate Sri Markio Tado is liable to be declared void under Section 100 of Representation of People Act, 1951? (7) Whether the petitioner received majority of valid vote for the vote obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices and is entitled to declaration that he has been duly elected under Section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951? 7. The election petitioner filed a list of documents and witnesses to prove his case. The returned candidate, the respondent No. 1 also filed his list of documents and witnesses. The election petitioner filed evidence-in-affidavit on 25.5.2012. Similarly the respondent No. 1-returned candidate also filed his evidence-in-affidavit. 8. Before entering into the discussion on the issues framed, it is felt necessary to take note of some Misc. Applications and results thereof. (i) M.C.(EP)05(AP)/2010 was filed on 29.6.2010 by the election petitioner for calling records of register of voters, counter foils (Form 17-A) of 38 Polling Stations of 13(ST) Itanagar Legislative Constituency (LAC) from the Returning Officer concerned. The returned candidate opposed the said application by filing objection petition on 19.8.2010. The said Misc. Application was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2010. The returned candidate opposed the said application by filing objection petition on 19.8.2010. The said Misc. Application was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2010. Against the said Judgment and order of this Court, the returned candidate filed a Civil Appeal No. 1539/12 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said civil appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2012 dismissing the aforesaid M.C(EP) No. 05(AP)/10 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act as reported in (2012)3 SCC 236 . Against the said judgment and order dated 14.9.2010 the respondent filed SLP (C) No. 34368/10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.11.10 stayed further proceeding of the election petition by order dated 18.11.10. It was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.10.2011. The respondent-returned candidate also filed another SLP (C) No. 30410/10 urging for additional grounds which was also dismissed on the same day i.e. 18.10.11 as infructuous. (ii) The election petitioner filed MC(EP)06(AP)/2010 on 29.6.2010 for calling hand writing expert to be present at the time of examination of the respondent's witnesses before this Court. The respondent- returned candidate objected the said prayer by filing affidavit-in-opposition on 19.8.2010. By order dated 19.3.2012, this Court directed to send the Register of Voters (Form 17-A), which were also procured from the District Election Authority under sealed cover and kept in safe custody of the Registry of the Bench and sent to the Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Police Training Centre, Bandardewa, AP, requesting him to conduct scientific examination and verification of signatures/finger prints appearing on Form 17A and to ascertain as to whether the thumb impressions and signatures contained in Form 17-A were put single handedly and fraudulently by few persons as a measure of impersonation of the genuine voters and after such scientific examination/verification to submit report to the Registry of the Court in sealed cover within 3rd May, 2012. Against the said order of this Court the respondent-returned candidate filed SLP (C) No. 14619/2012. The respondent-returned candidate on 9.5.2012 sought permission to withdraw the SLP(C) No. 12707/12 with liberty to agitate the question as and when election petition is heard on merit and to put in service the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court between the same parties on 2.2.2012. Accordingly the said SLP(C) was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date i.e. 9.5.2012. Accordingly the said SLP(C) was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date i.e. 9.5.2012. The other SLP(C) No. 14619 was also dismissed in view of the observations made in paragraph 17 of the impugned order passed by this Court in judgment and order dated 20.4.12 in MC(EP)2/(AP)/12. In the aforesaid paragraph 17 as referred to it was observed by this Court that; moreover, an issue has been framed on the maintainability of the election petition in its present form leaving further scope for the parties to argue on the issue after closure of evidence". (iii) The respondent/returned candidate on 19.8.2010 filed MC (EP) No. 07(AP)of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(a)CPC, 1908 for striking out the pleadings as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of Court with prayer for dismissal of the election petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid Misc. Case was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2010. Against the said judgment and order the respondent-returned candidate filed SLP(C) No. 34368/10 under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but it was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2011. As a result there is no striking out of any pleading of the election petition. (iv) The respondent-returned candidate again on 18.4.12 filed MC(EP)/02(AP) under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and Order 6 Rule 16 CPC, 1908 questioning the maintainability of additional affidavit dated 27.1.11 filed by the election petitioner in Form 25 as prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 for bringing the same as part of the election petition without leave of the Court in violation of time limit prescribed under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as R.P. Act only) with prayer for dismissal of the election petition. The said Misc. Case, after hearing the parties, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.4.12. The additional affidavit filed by the election petitioner was accepted. Against this order the respondent-returned candidate filed SIP(C) No. 12707/12 which, on the prayer made by the applicant/returned candidate, was dismissed on withdrawal, as stated earlier, on 9.5.2012. 9. ISSUE No. 1: Whether the instant election petition is maintainable in its present form? In regard to this issue, Mr. The additional affidavit filed by the election petitioner was accepted. Against this order the respondent-returned candidate filed SIP(C) No. 12707/12 which, on the prayer made by the applicant/returned candidate, was dismissed on withdrawal, as stated earlier, on 9.5.2012. 9. ISSUE No. 1: Whether the instant election petition is maintainable in its present form? In regard to this issue, Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the respondent returned candidate, first of all, submits that there is no cause of action. As per the provisions under Section 49 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, there is a provision for challenging the identity of a person, who comes to cast vote at a particular polling station, by depositing Rs.2/- only in cash with the Presiding Officer for its such challenge. At no polling station, no such challenge was made by the petitioner or his election agent or polling agent or any supporter/worker. Therefore, the allegation of casting votes by impersonation or misrepresentation is baseless and no triable cause of action arose. No complaint was made by any voter nor any Presiding Officer reported about such incident at any polling station. Secondly, the petitioner is trying to prove his case by examining his party workers and supporters without examining any independent witness. The party workers and supporters are interested and tutored witnesses and the allegations cannot be proved by examining such interested witnesses. As against these allegations, the official records reveal that the election in question was conducted smoothly and peacefully in all the polling stations. Thirdly, the respondent returned candidate won the election by a margin of 2713 votes and there is no evidence to support the allegation of booth capturing and rigging in any polling station. In the election petition, the allegation has been made that the genuine voters were allowed to cast their votes, but the petitioner has not mentioned the names of voters, total number of such voters and as to whether the votes secured allegedly through illegal means materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. For want of such material particulars, the election petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Fourthly, the petitioner originally made complaint before the Returning Officer in respect of the election in 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling stations only. But in his election petition, he has incorporated 6 other polling stations. For want of such material particulars, the election petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Fourthly, the petitioner originally made complaint before the Returning Officer in respect of the election in 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling stations only. But in his election petition, he has incorporated 6 other polling stations. The petitioner altogether received 1873 votes in 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling stations and as such, it cannot materially affect the election of the returned candidate as he won the election by a margin of 2713 votes. This finding has been given by the Apex Court in judgment and order dated 2.2.2012 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1539/2012, as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 236 : Markio Tado v. Takam Sorang & Ors. Fifthly, the election petition contains 10 annexures. They are the integral parts of the election petition, but the petitioner relied on the Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4, 9 & 10 only which have been marked as Exhibits No. P/9, P/10, P/13, P/14, P/18 and P/19 respectively. Regarding Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8, the election petitioner stated in his evidence that those annexures do not bear the signatures of the persons concerned. This being the position, all the annexures to the election petition stand non-existent and so, "half of the election petition becomes false, incomplete, ineffective" and on this score, the election petition can be dismissed as not being maintainable. Sixthly, under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, an election petition alleging corrupt practice, must be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and particulars. The schedule and annexures to the election petition should also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner as the petition. The election petition in the present case was not accompanied by an affidavit duly sworn in Form No. 25 prescribed under Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Election Rules" only). Since the affidavit is not in prescribed Form No. 25 the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner tried to remove this fatal defect by filing additional affidavit on 25.7.2011, that too, after expiry of time limit, which is not permissible under the law. Since the affidavit is not in prescribed Form No. 25 the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner tried to remove this fatal defect by filing additional affidavit on 25.7.2011, that too, after expiry of time limit, which is not permissible under the law. The said defect in filing the election petition without affidavit in proper form and in prescribed manner is not curable and the election petition must be dismissed on this score itself. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel, in this regard, has relied upon- 1) P.A. Mohammad Riyas v. U.K. Raghavan & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 511 ; 2) Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1733 ; 3) R.P. Moidutty v. P.T. Kunjaju Mohammad & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 481 ; 4) V. Narayan Swamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasa, (2000) 2 SCC 294 ; 5) Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 191 ; 6) F.A. Sapa & Ors. v. Janmeja Singh & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 375 . 10. Citing the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajib Gandhi, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 and Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath & Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 663, it is submitted by Mr. Pertin that the election petition can be dismissed even after framing of issues, if it does not disclose cause of action. He also submits that the election petition can be dismissed summarily at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Sections 86 and 87 of the R.P. Act, if the petitioner fails to furnish material facts and particulars in violation of Section 83 of the R.P. Act, which are essential for disclosing of cause of action relating to charge of corrupt practice. 11. Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, countering the above arguments, submits that the question of maintainability of the election petition cannot be raised at this belated stage inasmuch as the respondent returned candidate has already filed written statement and issues have been framed and even examination of recording of the petitioner's witnesses has been completed/closed. 11. Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, countering the above arguments, submits that the question of maintainability of the election petition cannot be raised at this belated stage inasmuch as the respondent returned candidate has already filed written statement and issues have been framed and even examination of recording of the petitioner's witnesses has been completed/closed. He submits that the election petition has been filed under Section 81 of the R.P. Act with statements of material facts and material particulars, on which the petitioner puts reliance as required under Section 83 of the R.P. Act According to him, those material facts and material particulars have sufficiently disclosed the cause of action within the meaning of Order 6 Rule 2 CPC. An election petition like the present one, with all necessary material facts and material particulars, is not liable to be dismissed at the threshold as insisted upon by the respondents. Further, he submits that at the time of examination of witnesses, the petitioner has already proved the documents filed by him and at this stage, therefore, maintainability of the election petition cannot be questioned. 12. As regards the annexures to the election petition, he submits that it is for the petitioner, out of all annexures or documents furnished, on which he may/should rely upon and get them proved and marked at the time of trial or recording of evidence. There is no law that the petitioner must rely on and get all the annexures/documents proved and exhibited and in failing to do so, the petition should be dismissed as not maintainable. 13. In regard to affidavit, it is submitted that the election petition is accompanied by an affidavit, which is substantially as per Form No. 25, although not exactly in Form No. 25, and hence the petitioner had sworn an additional affidavit on 27.1.2011 to form it as a part of the election petition. The said additional affidavit was filed as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4.2.2011 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 34368/2010. The said SLP (C) was filed by the respondent returned candidate, which was dismissed on withdrawal on 18.10.2011 on the request made in that behalf by his counsel. The question of maintainability of the election petition, as argued by Mr. Singh, learned counsel, has attained its finality as soon as the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2011. The said SLP (C) was filed by the respondent returned candidate, which was dismissed on withdrawal on 18.10.2011 on the request made in that behalf by his counsel. The question of maintainability of the election petition, as argued by Mr. Singh, learned counsel, has attained its finality as soon as the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2011. The respondent-returned candidate filed yet another MC (EP) No. 02(AP)/2012 under Order 7 Rule 11(i) and Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC questioning the maintainability of the aforesaid additional affidavit dated 27.1.2011 filed by the petitioner. The said Misc. Case was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.1.2012 and the said additional affidavit has been treated as a part of the election petition. 14. The above rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, so much so, the issues under consideration, are not new to this Court as the said issues were considered while disposing of the MC (EP) No. 07(AP)/2010, which was filed by the respondent returned candidate under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(A) CPC for striking out the pleadings as unnecessary, scandalous, fibulas, vexatious etc. The said Misc. Case was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2010. However, I am bound to consider the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent returned candidate. 15. There is no dispute that under Section 83 of the R.P. Act, an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and material particulars of corrupt practice including as full statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such corrupt practice. The present election petition contains the allegation of booth capturing by the respondent returned candidate, his agents and other persons within the meaning of Section 123(8) of the R.P. Act. The alleged booth capturing, as stated in the election petition, took place at 7-Roing, 2-Ruhi and 5-Guchi polling stations. The material facts and material particulars have been specifically furnished in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the election petition. The names of the persons responsible for alleged booth capturing in 8 polling stations have been furnished in the statement attached to paragraph 7 of the election petition. The material facts and material particulars have been specifically furnished in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the election petition. The names of the persons responsible for alleged booth capturing in 8 polling stations have been furnished in the statement attached to paragraph 7 of the election petition. In paragraph 8 of the election petition, the petitioner has explained how he would have secured more votes materially affecting the election of the returned candidate and thereby how the petitioner would have been declared elected. It is altogether a different thing how the election petitioner would prove his case of corrupt practice by way of booth capturing by the petitioner and his agents, workers, supporters etc. Whether he has been able to prove the said allegation of booth capturing could be examined at the later stage when the issues involved/connected therewith are discussed. But so far furnishing of material facts and particulars are concerned, the petitioner has complied with the provisions of law and I had the occasion to discuss and give my findings in this regard in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the judgment and order dated 14.9.2010 rendered in Misc. Case (EP) No. 07(AP)/2010, which are reproduced hereunder:-- 8. As regards 7-Roing polling station, the following averments have been made in para 4 of the election petition- ... Especially in Roing polling station no election was held on 13th October, 2009 as the polling team with Ballot Boxes (EVM) had been kidnapped by the PPA workers headed by Sri Gichik Kiogi Thaji on 12th October night Shri Gianiu Tallo INC Polling agent Roing and Shri Tami Tayak President NSUI, Kurung Kumey District reported the incident on 13th October, 2009 in separate letters to the Executive Magistrate, Tali for necessary action. On the next day on 14th October, 2009 Shri Rigam Santana, General Secretary Block Congress Committee Tali, Shri Tami Tayak President NSUI, Tali Shri Tagio Yashok, ZPM, Tali jointly submitted a representation about the same incident with request for repoll to the Assistant Returning Officer, 20-Tali(ST)Assembly Constituency. Shri Gichik Tago Polling Agent, 7-Roing Polling Station and Shri Gichik Tachu jointly submitted another representation on 13th October, 2009 to the Assistant Returning Officer, 20-Tali(ST)Assembly Constituency for re-poll etc. But since no action has been taken by the concerned authority the genuine voters failed to exercise their constitutional right of adult franchise. Shri Gichik Tago Polling Agent, 7-Roing Polling Station and Shri Gichik Tachu jointly submitted another representation on 13th October, 2009 to the Assistant Returning Officer, 20-Tali(ST)Assembly Constituency for re-poll etc. But since no action has been taken by the concerned authority the genuine voters failed to exercise their constitutional right of adult franchise. In this regard, the material fact is that there was a booth capturing at 7-Roing Polling Station on 13th October, 2009 by way of kidnapping the polling staff/team with ballot boxes (EVM). The necessary material particulars are that the booth capturing and kidnapping of polling team and EVM was done under the leadership of PPA workers head by Sri Gichik Kiogi Thaji on 12th October night. 9. As regard booth capturing at 2-Ruhi polling station averments have been made in para 5 of the election petition as under: That similarly at 2-Ruhi polling station some miscreants including Shri Markio Tado P.P.A. Candidate himself involved in booth capturing and cast votes by single hand showing vote only 1 for INC and 1196 for PPA. The common voters were not allowed to exercise their voting rights as they have been threatened to their lives by the miscreants of opposite party No. 5. The matter was reported by INC Polling Agent, Shri Tamuk Talu of Tamuk village to the Assistant Returning Officer 20-Tali (ST) A.C. Arunachal Pradesh on 14.10.2009 for repoll. Such election offence of booth capturing was also happened at 5-Guchi polling station. Polling Agent Sri Dangur Tadek reported the matter on 13.10.09 to the Assistant Returning Officer 20-Tali (ST) Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Constituency, for re-poll and necessary action. 10. The allegation has been brought clearly against the returned candidate of the PPA, Shri Markio Tado himself that there was casting of votes single-handedly in the said polling where only one vote was cast in favour of the INC. This is a material fact. Of course, no other name of agents or workers of PPA candidate have been disclosed. The applicant-returned candidate has been informed sufficiently about the charge he has to meet. Regarding booth capturing at 5-Guchi polling station, no such material particulars has been furnished. This is a material fact. Of course, no other name of agents or workers of PPA candidate have been disclosed. The applicant-returned candidate has been informed sufficiently about the charge he has to meet. Regarding booth capturing at 5-Guchi polling station, no such material particulars has been furnished. The allegation of boom capturing at 5-Guchi polling station it appears to be lacking in material facts and particulars but the same is to be read with annexure-5, a complaint dated 13.10.2009 made by the polling agent of the election petitioner with the Assistant Returning Officer, 20- Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency whereby stringent action was demanded against those persons involved in booth capturing. In the said complaint fresh polling was also demanded. 11. Similar type of allegation of booth capturing has been made by the election petitioner in respect of five other polling stations namely (1) 10-Yarda, (2) 8-Dotte, (3) 6-Giba, (4) 4- Tungmar and (5) 15- Richik by different workers of the returned candidate with his consent and pre-plan. The names and particulars of persons who indulge in casting votes in the aforesaid eight (8) polling stations where booth capturing took place, have been furnished in a statement as part of para 5 of the election petition. In the election petition, it has been specifically stated that complaints were filed with the Assistant Returning Officer and the Returning Officer concerned about the aforesaid incident of booth capturing in the above polling stations and demanded repoll but no action was taken by the authorities concerned. The election petitioner also made a point that due to booth capturing in the polling stations mentioned above, the petitioner lost the election. In my considered view, the election petitioner has been able to furnish sufficient material facts and particular sufficient to inform the returned candidates to meet the charges brought against him in the election petition and to disapprove the same by adducing evidence in his support. 12. No doubt, as per provisions under Order VI Rule 16, Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to strike out any matter in any pleading (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Law has been settled by the Apex Court in Sathi Vijay Kumar v. Total Singh & Ors., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 3S3 that the underlined object of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to ensure that every party to a suit should present his pleadings in an intelligible form without causing embarrassment to his adversary. If the parties have not offended the rules of pleadings by making averments or raising arguable issues, the Court would not order striking out of pleadings but a note of warning has also been given that the power to strike out pleadings is extra ordinary in nature and must be exercised by the Courts sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection. The Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) held that the election petition is required to contain a concise statement of material facts equivalent to a cause of action and it is not required to set out in the petition the entire evidence in support of materials facts. In the present case, the opposite party/election petitioner has set forth in his election petition the required concise material facts namely booth capturing at least 8(eight) polling stations with necessary material particulars, the applicant-returned candidate had to meet. It is found that the election petitioner has complied with the requirement of law in regard to preparation of pleadings without offending the rules of pleadings. The averments made in the election petition with the material facts and particulars have raised arguable issues particularly indulging in corrupt practice by the returned candidate and his agents and workers by way of booth capturing in the above 8 (eight) polling stations. It is an issue concerning the election petitioner in particular and people of the constituency in general affecting free and fair conduct of election in a democratic society which must be taken seriously, because the MLAs are law makers of the State and they must prove themselves free from corrupt practices in the election. 13............................................................................. 14. I have gone through the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in Rakhaldas (supra) in regard to tendering and exhibiting documents before the trial Court. As per the said judgment, any question regarding admissibility of a particular document in evidence for the purpose of proceeding must be decided at the time when the document is tendered and before it is actually marked as an exhibit. As per the said judgment, any question regarding admissibility of a particular document in evidence for the purpose of proceeding must be decided at the time when the document is tendered and before it is actually marked as an exhibit. In the present case, the applicant/returned candidate admittedly did not raise any objection to tendering any document either in original or photocopies and marking/exhibiting them. The said documents were exhibited/proved through witnesses. When a document is exhibited the same is to be taken into consideration in deciding the related questions in respect of a particular case. The applicant, at this stage of the proceeding, is debarred from questioning the admissibility of the evidence tendered by the witnesses by exhibiting the document. However, the said documentary exhibit can be impeached by the applicant-elected candidate by adducing evidence through his witnesses. The said stage is yet to come. He may take the chance by examining his witnesses. 15.A. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner failed to furnish an affidavit in Form No. 25 to the election petition, but he claimed that it was substantially as per the prescribed form i.e. Form No. 25. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner, having come to know that the affidavit accompanying the election petition, was not in the prescribed form, filed an additional affidavit on 27.1.2011 as per liberty granted by the Apex Court vide order dated 4.2.2011 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. S.34368/2010. A copy of the said order has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is quoted hereunder:- 04.02.2011 On the request of the learned counsel for the caveator, the matter is adjourned by a week. It will be open to the respondent to file additional documents including copy of the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 27.1.2011 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- I Shri Takam Sorang, S/o. Shri Sorang Takio, resident of Village-Zara, P.O.--Tali, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh, and permanently resident at Damsite, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh aged about 37 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: 1. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 27.1.2011 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- I Shri Takam Sorang, S/o. Shri Sorang Takio, resident of Village-Zara, P.O.--Tali, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh, and permanently resident at Damsite, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh aged about 37 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: 1. That I am the petitioner in the above mentioned Election Petition calling in question the election of Shri Markio Tado (Respondent No. 1(5) in the said petition on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Representation of the Peoples' Act, 1951. The petition was accompanied with the affidavit supporting the statements made in the petition substantively as per Form 25 but not exactly as per format. Hence, I crave leave of this Hon'ble High Court to bring this additional affidavit to form part of the record of the case. 2. That the statements made in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the election petition about the commission of corrupt practice of booth capturing, rigging, casting the votes by single handedly and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in the said paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the same petition and in paragraphs.....of the schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge. 3. That the statements made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the said petition about the commission of corrupt practice of booth capturing, kidnapping of polling team with voting machines in 8 polling stations under 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency described in a statement at paragraph 7 of the petition and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the said petition and the contents of the schedule annexed thereto are true to my information. 4. And the rest are prayers for relief before this Hon'ble High Court. Sd/- Illegible Signature of Deponent Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Sri Takam Sorang, S/o. Shri Sorang Takio at Naharlagun Court premises on this 27th day of January, 2011 16. The respondent returned candidate challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid additional affidavit by filing Misc. Case being MC(EP) No. 02(AP)/2012 and this Court by judgment and order dated 20.4.2012 accepted with direction that it shall form a part of the election petition. 17. The respondent returned candidate challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid additional affidavit by filing Misc. Case being MC(EP) No. 02(AP)/2012 and this Court by judgment and order dated 20.4.2012 accepted with direction that it shall form a part of the election petition. 17. In Moidutty's case (supra), Kerala High Court found the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the election petition, as not satisfying the requirements of the proviso to Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act and Form No. 25 prescribed under the Election Rules. In F.A. Sapa's case (supra) also, it is held that for want of affidavit in the required form and also for lack of particulars, the allegation of corrupt practice cannot be enquired into and tried at all. In Narayan Swamy's case (supra), it is held that the election petition alleging corrupt practice must be supported by an affidavit disclosing the source of information and stating that the allegations are true to the petitioner's knowledge. In the present case, the petitioner by filing an affidavit has disclosed the source of information and also mentioned that the allegations are true to his knowledge. The judgments in the above cited case extend support to the petitioner's case providing that the additional affidavit is accepted and treated as a part of the election petition. As I have, with reasons furnished above, once accepted it as a valid affidavit, it cannot be taken out of the record. In my considered view, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case and also on application of the law in the above cases, the election petition has met the requirements of filing affidavit to the election petition alleging corrupt practice and the same can be taken up for trial. For the above reasons, Issue No. 1 stands answered in the affirmative in favour of the election petitioner. 18. Issue No. 2: Whether the polling team of 7-Roing polling station along with the EVM were kidnapped by the P.P.A. workers headed by one Shri Gichik Kiogi Taji in the night of 12.10.2009 and as a result of which, whether practically no election was held in the said polling station? The election petitioner, in support of his case, examined 4 witnesses including himself. The aforesaid witnesses, before commencement of trial, filed an evidence-in-affidavit as required under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Those affidavits have been marked as Ext. P/7, Ext. The election petitioner, in support of his case, examined 4 witnesses including himself. The aforesaid witnesses, before commencement of trial, filed an evidence-in-affidavit as required under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Those affidavits have been marked as Ext. P/7, Ext. P/9, Ext. P/12 and Ext. P/13. Apart from the aforesaid paper exhibits, the petitioner relied on certain documents, mainly, the complaints lodged with the District Election Authority, which have been marked as Ext. P/8, Ext. P/10, Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/15 to Ext. P/22. In his evidence-in-affidavit (Ext. P/7), Sri Tagru Taru stated that he was the polling agent of Indian National Congress (in short I.N.C.) at 7-Roing Polling Station. He was at Roing on 12.10.2009. The polling staff arrived in the evening on the same day and he had a talk with them at night in the residence of one Sri Gichik Taming. On the next day, (i.e. 13.10.2009), he got up at 5 A.M. and went to see the polling staff, but he did not see the polling team nor even the E.V.Ms. He also stated that none of the workers of Sri Markio Tado (P.P.A. candidate) was present in the village and so, they presumed that the polling staff were kidnapped by the workers of Markio Tado headed by Sri Gichik Kiogi Taji, Sri Yaro Palang, Sri Yara Taha and Sri Nabam Tara. He along with other I.N.C. party workers started searching for the polling staff and headed towards Tali to lodge a complaint to the effect that the polling team has been kidnapped. But, on their way to Tali, they were interrupted at suspension bridge above Kamla River and were threatened by firing from the opposite bank of the said river. However, they reached Tali at around 11 A.M. through alternative road. The affidavit and his signature on it have been proved and exhibited as Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/7(1) respectively. In his oral evidence, this witness proved the complaint filed by him, which has been marked as Ext. P/8 and his signature which has been marked as Ext. 8(1). In cross examination, he clarified that the Ext. P/8 was a photocopy of the complaint petition, which bears no endorsement of the officer or the officials acknowledging receipt of the said complaint (Ext. P/8). He also clarified that the complaint was not written in his own hand. P/8 and his signature which has been marked as Ext. 8(1). In cross examination, he clarified that the Ext. P/8 was a photocopy of the complaint petition, which bears no endorsement of the officer or the officials acknowledging receipt of the said complaint (Ext. P/8). He also clarified that the complaint was not written in his own hand. He does not know who scribed the Ext. P/8. He however, denied the suggestion that the said Ext. P/8 was manufactured after declaration of the election result. He also denied the suggestion that the polling team/personnel were not kidnapped by P.P.A. party workers headed by Sri Gichik Kiogi Taji, Sri Yaro Palang, Sri Yara Taha and Sri Nabam Tara because there were policemen on duty with arms. This witness denied the suggestion that there was no incident of kidnapping of polling officials and there was peace during poll on 13th October, 2009. He reiterated that there were no polling officials at 7-Roing Polling Station although several people came for casting their votes. The suggestion that they were not interrupted on the suspension bridge above Kamla River and that there was no threat by firing from the opposite bank of the river, was also denied. He added that they could not cross the bridge due to firing from jungle opposite to the bridge. He also denied that he brought false allegation against the returned candidate and he has deposed falsely against him as he was a supporter of the defeated I.N.C. party candidate. 19. On the same incident, Sri Gichik Tachu, an elected Anchalik Samiti Member (A.S.M.) was examined as P.W. 8. In his evidence-in-affidavit which he proved and got it marked as Ext. P/9, bearing his signature marked as Ext. P/9(1), stated that no election was held at 7-Roing Polling Station as the polling team with E.V.M. was kidnapped by the workers of Sri Markio Tado headed by Sri Yara Palang, Sri Taji Gichik Kiogi and Sri Yara Taha. Being a responsible person, he along with Sri Gichik Tago, polling agent of I.N.C. candidate, lodged a complaint on 14th October, 2009 with the A.R.O. and demanded re-poll. In his oral evidence before the Court, he proved the said complaint and his signature thereon as Ext. P/10 and Ext. P/10(1). He also identified and, proved the signatures of Sri Gichik Tachu, which was marked as Ext. P/10(2). He also clarified that the complaint-Ext. In his oral evidence before the Court, he proved the said complaint and his signature thereon as Ext. P/10 and Ext. P/10(1). He also identified and, proved the signatures of Sri Gichik Tachu, which was marked as Ext. P/10(2). He also clarified that the complaint-Ext. P/10 was typed out and printed in computer at the polling station on 13.10.2009, but he accepted the suggestion that there was no provision for computer typing at Roing polling station. He again stated that Ext. P/10 was in fact, written by him at 7-Roing polling station and submitted the same before the A.R.O. concerned. But it was typed out and printed in computer. He denied that Ext. P/10 was manufactured as an afterthought just to make out a case. The said Ext. P/10 was written by his friend Sri R.T. Hake, Zilla Parishad Member (Z.P.M.), C.W. 1 at Roing polling station. The said R.T. Hake is a resident of Nobia village which falls under Pipsorang circle. The distance between Nobia village and Roing can be covered in 5 to 6 hours on foot and it takes whole day for covering the distance from Nobia to 7-Roing polling station. He knew that said R.T. Hake cast his vote on 13.10.2009 at Nobia polling station. He clarified that he did not know whether the polling officials were kidnapped with E.V.M. by the workers of Sri Markio Tado headed by above named persons, but when he visited the said polling station for casting the vote, he found no polling officials since the morning of 13.10.2009. He denied the suggestion that being supporter of I.N.C. party candidate, he made false deposition. He asserted that he was deprived of precious right to vote. He firmly denied the suggestion that Ext. P/10 was manufactured after the election result was declared with intention to make out a case for the defeated candidate, Sri Takam Sorang. This witness was re-examined by the petitioner. In re-examination, he stated that the complaint-Ext. P/10 was written by hand on 13.10.2009 in the morning hours and Sri R.T. Hake left 7-Roing polling station immediately at 6 A.M. 20. The election petitioner in support of the above allegation, examined one Sri Tami Tayak as P.W. 11. Like other P.Ws, he also filed evidence-in-affidavit which he proved and got it marked as Ext. P/12 and his signature thereon as Ext. P/12(1). The election petitioner in support of the above allegation, examined one Sri Tami Tayak as P.W. 11. Like other P.Ws, he also filed evidence-in-affidavit which he proved and got it marked as Ext. P/12 and his signature thereon as Ext. P/12(1). In the said affidavit, he stated that he made a complaint to the Executive Magistrate, Tali regarding missing of polling team with E.V.M. He also stated that a joint representation signed by 5 signatories was submitted to the A.R.O. demanding re-poll at Roing polling centre since no polling team reported at the said polling centre and no election was held on 13.10.2009 at 7-Roing polling station. He reaffirmed the aforesaid statements in his oral evidence. He has proved the said complaints marked as Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14. He also proved his signature marked as Ext. P/13(1) and Ext. P/14(1). During cross examination, he admitted that the complaints Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14 are the photocopies written by some person. On being asked who wrote the complaint Ext. P/8, this witness clarified that the complaints Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14 are in the handwriting of Sri R.T. Hake (C.W. 1) who belongs to Nobia village. He cast his vote at Tali polling station and he does not know at what polling station, the said Sri R.T. Hake cast his vote. He agreed that it takes 2 days on foot to cover the distance from Lukbia to 7-Roing polling station and it takes 3 hours at the maximum to cover the distance on foot from Tali to 7-Roing polling station. According to him, Ext. P/13 was written at Tali on 13.10.2009 and he signed Ext. P/14 at Tali. However, he does not know where this exhibit was written. Like P.W. 7 and 8, he also denied the suggestion that Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14 were manufactured by them through Sri R.T. Hake after the I.N.C. candidate was declared defeated with intention to make out a case for him as he belongs to I. N.C. party. At the end of his evidence, he stated that Tali is situated at such a backward place, which is yet to be covered by mobile phone network and similar is the case in respect of 7-Roing Polling Station for which, the polling officials and police personnel were provided with Walkie-Talkie for their communication. 21. At the end of his evidence, he stated that Tali is situated at such a backward place, which is yet to be covered by mobile phone network and similar is the case in respect of 7-Roing Polling Station for which, the polling officials and police personnel were provided with Walkie-Talkie for their communication. 21. Court Witness No. 1 Sri R.T. Hake testified that he scribed Ext. P/8, the missing report of polling team with ballot box and E.V.M. of 7-Roing Polling Station. He also scribed Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14 in his own hand. He knows all the 5 persons who signed Ext. P/14. Those 5 persons carried and delivered Ext. P/14 to the A.R.O. concerned. He even testified that he was present at the time of presenting the Exts. P/8, P/10, P/13 and P/14 before the officer concerned along with the signatories. He did not accept the statement of P.W. 8 that he cast his vote at Nobia Polling Station and also the statement that he left 7-Roing Polling Station after drafting Ext. P/8 at about 6 A.M. He clarified that he was at Tali Headquarters and wrote the said exhibits at Tali Headquarters itself. He flatly denied the suggestion that he did not write the aforesaid exhibits at Tali Headquarters on 13.10.2009 or 14.10.2009. He further denied the suggestion that he did not cast his vote at Tali Headquarters. He, however, admitted the suggestion that he had no personal knowledge about the alleged incident of booth capturing and rigging as he did not visit those places. 22. Against the aforesaid evidence of election petitioner, the respondent-returned candidate examined D.W. 3, D.W. 4, D.W. 8 and D.W. 23. D.W. 3 is one Sri Yaro Taha who stated that he cast his vote at 7-Roing Polling Station. He was present at the polling station at around 7 A.M. He saw the voters in queue. He also saw the polling officials including the Presiding Officer and polling agents of the respective candidates inside the polling station To his knowledge, there was no disturbance or violence inside the polling station. There were 2 policemen on duty at the said polling station. In cross examination, he stated that the polling of officials arrived at the polling station on 12.10.2009 at 4 P.M. They spent the night in the polling station. There were 2 policemen on duty at the said polling station. In cross examination, he stated that the polling of officials arrived at the polling station on 12.10.2009 at 4 P.M. They spent the night in the polling station. He denied the suggestion that the election could not be held due to booth capturing or disturbance or violence in the polling station on the day of poll. He also denied the suggestion that some supporters of returned candidate kidnapped the polling officials and captured the polling booth. He further denied that he was one of the persons who kidnapped the election officials. Sri Yara Palang(D.W.-4) stated that the election was held peacefully. There were policemen in the polling station. There were two queues; one for male and the other for female voters. There were Presiding Officer, Polling Officers, policemen and other voters. One Gyani Talu, polling agent of I.N.C. candidate was also present. In his opinion, there is no ground for challenging the election of the Respondent No. 1 because the election was conducted in a peaceful manner. In cross examination, he stated that he does not remember at what time the poll started at 7-Roing Polling Station. As he stays at a distant place, he could not say where the polling staff stayed after arriving at 7-Roing Polling Station. He denied the suggestion that polling staff of 7-Roing Polling Station were kidnapped and election was not held peacefully. 23. D.W. 8, Taji Gichik Kiogi, deposed that the handwriting and signature appearing on Ext. P/13 are not in the handwriting of P.W. 11. He knows Sri Gichik Tago as he is his younger cousin brother. He also knows Sri Gichik Tachu as he is also his cousin brother. Both are voters of 7-Roing Polling Station. He denied the suggestion that under his leadership, booth capturing, kidnapping etc. took place at 7-Roing Polling Station on the day of poll and asserted that there was no chance of resorting to act of booth capturing, rigging and kidnapping as the Presiding Officer and polling officials besides security personnel and public were present at the polling station. 24. D.W. 23, Sri Manje Tangjang is a Government official who was appointed as Presiding Officer of 7-Roing Polling Station. He deposed that 3 polling officers were appointed along with him for the said polling station. 24. D.W. 23, Sri Manje Tangjang is a Government official who was appointed as Presiding Officer of 7-Roing Polling Station. He deposed that 3 polling officers were appointed along with him for the said polling station. They were lifted by Pawan Hans Helicopter service and were dropped at Tali on 10.9.2009. They halted at Tali on 10th October, 2009 and collected election materials on 11th October, 2009. As they were not familiar with the said place and people, they proceeded on foot to Roing on 12.10.2009 at about 7 A.M. with the help of porters. They arrived at Roing at about 4.30/5 P.M. They were received by village headman and other local leaders who arranged one house for their stay. With the help of local people, they came to the polling station at around 5.20 A.M. for making necessary arrangement for the poll on 13.10.2009. At around 6.30 A.M., they conducted mock poll in presence of polling agents and the polling staff. The poll started at 7 A.M. On being identified by the polling agents, the voters were allowed to come inside the polling booth and cast their vote. They conducted the poll peacefully and closed the E.V.Ms at around 3.30 P.M. and after completing the formalities at around 6.20 P.M., they left the polling station at 6.30 P.M. for Tali by different routes on foot. They arrived at Tali at about 11 P.M. and reported before the A. R.O. The poll materials were deposited/submitted and on 14.10.2009, they left Tali for Koloriang by helicopter service. He stated that no complaint was received from any body regarding alleged booth capturing and rigging at 7-Roing Polling Station. He further stated that as Presiding Officer, he maintained register of voters in Form-17-A which he proved and marked as Ext. D/21 which bears his signature marked Ext. D/21(1) and D/22(2). He maintained accounts of votes in Form-17C and also Presiding Officer's Diary. 25. From the contents of Ext. P/8 it appears that P.W. 7 was an eye witness to the incident of kidnapping of polling team of 7-Roing polling station with EVMs by the PPA workers headed by D.W. 8 and he has deposed before the Court about the same. P.W. 11 reported about the said incident vide a complainant dated 13.10.2009 (Ext. P/13). P.W. 8 also reported the A.R.O. vide complainant dated 13.10.2009(Ext. P/10) about the same incident. P.W. 11 reported about the said incident vide a complainant dated 13.10.2009 (Ext. P/13). P.W. 8 also reported the A.R.O. vide complainant dated 13.10.2009(Ext. P/10) about the same incident. In support of their allegations the said witnesses were examined themselves. Against their evidence the respondent returned candidate also examined D.Ws. 3, 4, 8 and 23. 26. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the allegation of kidnapping of polling team with EVMs is not cogent and believable inasmuch as it has been found that the polling team arrived at the polling station in the evening of 12.10.2009 and they were present in the 7-Roing polling station to conduct the election. The witnesses of the petitioner did not inform the police for taking necessary action against the culprits. There is no evidence of lodging any FIR or complaint by the witnesses concerned. It may be held that there was an attempt to kidnap the polling team with EVMs by interested parties but it did not succeed. In that view of the matter, I hold that the allegation of kidnapping of polling team with EVMs does not stand proved. Whether the election was conducted at the 7-Roing polling station peacefully and without disturbance is a matter of examination on the basis of documentary and oral evidence available on record. The parties concerned have adduced their oral and documentary evidence. I have already appreciated the evidence on record in respect of the alleged incident at 7-Roing polling station. Apart from the petitioner there are three witnesses (P.Ws. 7, 8 and 11) who have adduced their evidence. There is no independent witness for the petitioner. P.W. 7 is the polling agent of the petitioner while the P.W. 8 is an ASM elected as an INC nominee and P.W. 11 was an INC worker. They have not bothered to examine any voter from the said polling station as independent witness to give evidence on the actual happenings that had taken place at the said polling station. As against the evidence of the petitioner's witness, the respondent returned candidate examined three witnesses who are his party workers. He also examined one Presiding Officer as D.W. 23. No voter from the said polling station was examined as independent witness by the Respondent No. 1 also. For want of evidence of independent witnesses it is difficult to take a view for or against the allegation. He also examined one Presiding Officer as D.W. 23. No voter from the said polling station was examined as independent witness by the Respondent No. 1 also. For want of evidence of independent witnesses it is difficult to take a view for or against the allegation. The balance tilts in favour of a returned candidate in so far as he has been able to examine the Presiding Officer concerned (D.W. 23) who has broadly deposed that the election was conducted peacefully and there was no incident of booth capturing, rigging and single-handed casting of votes and he received no such complaint from anybody. On the face of such evidence the allegation brought by the petitioner against the returned candidate should be rejected and the issue should be answered in the negative in favour of the respondent. There is again a difficulty in holding the issue in favour of the respondent in view of the report of the experts and their evidence adduced as C.W. 2 and 3. I will come to a final conclusion in this regard after discussing the other issues involved. 27. Issue No. 3 - Whether any election offence of booth capturing was committed at 2-Ruhi and 5-Guchi polling stations on 13.10.2009 by Markio Tado and his party workers by casting the votes single-handedly? This issue pertains to two polling stations. First of all let me discuss about the allegations of corrupt practice and the evidence on record adduced by the parties. The allegation in this respect has been made in paragraph 7 of the election petition, particularly at Sl. No. 3 of the chart provided as part of the said paragraph. The names of persons" who cast votes in place of other voters" has been furnished. It has mentioned the names of Shri Markio Tado, PPA candidate, Shri Mui Aman, Shri Mui Tai and Shri Tagiu (Tagio Taniang). The election petitioner, besides himself, has examined Shri Tamuk Taluk as P.W. 3. He had sworn one deposition-in-affidavit filed on 5.5.2010 which he proved and got it marked as Ext. P/3 with his signature thereon marked as Ext. P/3(1). In the said affidavit he stated that on 13th October, 2009 he went to cast vote and reported before the Presiding Officer as polling agent of INC candidate at 2-Ruhi polling station but he was obstructed by about 50 workers of Shri Markio Tado. P/3 with his signature thereon marked as Ext. P/3(1). In the said affidavit he stated that on 13th October, 2009 he went to cast vote and reported before the Presiding Officer as polling agent of INC candidate at 2-Ruhi polling station but he was obstructed by about 50 workers of Shri Markio Tado. He was checked and threatened by the workers of Markio Tado with dire consequences if he volunteered to enter the polling booth. At that time the respondent Markio Tado was also standing with his said workers. He saw none in the queue near the polling booth till the conclusion of poll. He did not sign any document as a polling agent. He was cross examined by the respondent's counsel. He stated that he, on being appointed as a polling agent of election petitioner, came to the polling station with the appointment letter. He saw no policeman in the premises of the polling station nor did he see any person in the premises of the polling station. He was allowed to go inside the polling booth but he did not lodge any complaint before any authority in this regard. Regarding the alleged incident of 2-Ruhi polling station the election petitioner submitted a complaint through fax dated 15.10.2009 which was proved by him and exhibited as Ext. P/15. The said complaint was addressed to the R.O. and it included the alleged incident of 7-Roing Polling Station in the said complaint, Ext. P/15, he has not disclosed the source of his information. 28. The respondent returned candidate examined 5 witnesses as D.W. 1, D.W. 14, D.W. 15, D.W. 16 and D.W. 28. D.W. 1 is Shri Mui Aman. He belongs to Ruhi village. He has been impleaded as respondent No. 9 in the election petition. According to his evidence, there were two queues; one for the male and the other for the female voters. He cast his vote on the date of poll at the said polling station. Security personnel were posted at the polling station. The polling officials include Presiding Officer and Polling Officers besides one Micro Observer sent by the Central Election Commission. Polling agents of the respective candidates were present in the polling station. The election was held peacefully without any disturbance. There was no mobile phone facility at Ruhi where the polling station situates. Security personnel were posted at the polling station. The polling officials include Presiding Officer and Polling Officers besides one Micro Observer sent by the Central Election Commission. Polling agents of the respective candidates were present in the polling station. The election was held peacefully without any disturbance. There was no mobile phone facility at Ruhi where the polling station situates. Two IRBN personnel were posted with wireless set and they used to transmit message every one hour. In cross examination he stated that he has been serving as a teacher under the Sarba Siksha Abhijan since 2003. There is no motor-able road connecting Ruhi village. The population of Ruhi village would be about 1500. The voters were in the queue since 7 A.M. on 13.10.2009. He does not remember at what time the poll concluded but he left the Ruhi polling station at about 9.30 A.M. He denied the allegation that the polling agent of INC candidate was not allowed to enter the Ruhi polling station. D.W. 14 is Shri Tagiu Tamang who was working as Chowkidar in the Electrical Department in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. He deposed that he cast his vote at 2-Ruhi polling station and he does not belong to any political party at the time of the election in question. He stood in the queue for casting vote. Outside the polling station he saw two policemen and inside the polling station he saw the Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and polling agents of both the election candidates. No disturbance or incident took place on the day of poll at 2-Ruhi polling station and the election was held peacefully. In cross examination he deposed that he cannot say how many PPA party workers were present at the polling station but he saw many people present at the polling station. He denied the suggestion that there was booth capturing and rigging of votes at 2-Ruhi polling station. He also denied the suggestion that he was one of the persons who were allegedly involved in the act of booth capturing and rigging of votes. He also denied the suggestion that PPA party candidate Shri Markio Tado along with 50 workers captured the polling booth and rigged the votes. 29. D.W. 15 is one Mui Tai who was working as a teacher on contract basis under the Sarba Siksha Abhijan. He also denied the suggestion that PPA party candidate Shri Markio Tado along with 50 workers captured the polling booth and rigged the votes. 29. D.W. 15 is one Mui Tai who was working as a teacher on contract basis under the Sarba Siksha Abhijan. He stood in the queue for casting vote and he cast his vote at 2-Ruhi polling station. Inside the polling station he saw the Presiding Officer, Polling Officers and polling agents of the election candidates. He saw two policemen on duty outside the polling station. He does not belong to any political party and he denied the allegation that the voters were obstructed and prevented from casting their votes by the supporters of the PPA party candidate. In cross examination he stated that the present MLA Mr. Markio Tado belongs to Ruhi village. He cannot say how many workers were there with Mr. Markio Tado when he visited the said polling station. However, he denied the suggestion that the present MLA and his party workers indulged in the act of booth capturing and rigging of votes at 2-Ruhi polling station. 30. D.W. 16 is Markio Raju, who is a resident of Ruhi village and was the polling agent of the PPA candidate. He deposed that the polling officials arrived at Ruhi village on the previous day i.e. on 12.10.2009 and they stayed overnight in the house of village-headman and in the morning of the next day they came to the polling station. There was a mock poll conducted in the polling booth in presence of Micro Observer from Central Election Commission, polling agents of the respective party candidates, Presiding Officer and Polling Officer before the poll started from 7.30 A.M. There were two queues for the male and female voters in front of the polling station. The Micro Observer took snaps outside the polling station before the poll started. The poll continued till around 6 P.M. although the official scheduled time was upto 4 P.M. only. It was done so because the voters were in the queue even after 4 P.M.. The Presiding Officer allowed those voters to cast their votes who were already in the queue at or before 4 P.M. and to whom he issued coupons/slips. After the poll the polling staff remained in the polling station overnight along with the EVMs and election papers. The Presiding Officer allowed those voters to cast their votes who were already in the queue at or before 4 P.M. and to whom he issued coupons/slips. After the poll the polling staff remained in the polling station overnight along with the EVMs and election papers. In the next morning the EVMs and other election papers were sent to Tali along with the polling staff guarded by security men. There was no disturbance or hungama as alleged by P.W. 3. He denied the allegation of booth capturing, obstruction, intimidation etc at the said polling station. According to this witness, the election was held in a peaceful, free and fair manner. In cross examination he stated that the respondent returned candidate and himself belong to same tribe and same village. He does not remember who was the polling agent of INC candidate. He asserted he knew P.W. 3 but he does not belong to their village. He also said that he did not pay attention as to whether Tamuk Taluk (P.W. 3) was present or not during poll at Ruhi polling station. He denied the suggestion that there were incidents of booth capturing, disturbance, obstacles, intimidation to voters and rigging of votes by the supporters of PPA candidate. 31. D.W. 28, Milli Monga is a Government servant, working in the Department of Power under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. He was appointed as Presiding Officer at 2-Ruhi polling station. He stated that accompanied by three polling staff, two security personnel and one Micro Observer from Central Election Commission, he arrived at the said polling station on 12.10.2009. They stayed in the house of village Headman and came to the polling station at around 6 A.M. A barricade was constructed on 12.10.2009 at the said polling station with the help of security personnel and the village headman. He testified about holding of mock poll, making of two queues for female and male voters with the help of security personnel and village Headman and taking of photograph by the Micro Observer. According to him, the election was conducted peacefully without any disturbance. No polling agent of the election candidate lodged any complaint with him. He testified about holding of mock poll, making of two queues for female and male voters with the help of security personnel and village Headman and taking of photograph by the Micro Observer. According to him, the election was conducted peacefully without any disturbance. No polling agent of the election candidate lodged any complaint with him. He also deposed about preparation of documents like Form 17-A, Form 17-C and Presiding Officer's diary and observation of necessary formalities in packing and sealing the EVMs and other election materials at around 8 P.M. After completion of the formalities they stayed back in the house of the village Headman for the night and in the next morning at about 5.30 A.M. they had foot marched from Ruhi to Tali, the Circle Headquarter and office of the A.R.O. He proved and got exhibited the election documents including the Form 17-A (Register of Voters), Ext. D/33 which bears his signatures, Exts. D/33(1) to (23). In cross examination he stated that inside the polling booth the polling agents of respective election candidates were present. Except the polling agents and polling staff no other person was present inside the polling booth. He does not know the polling agents of the election candidates posted at the said polling station. However, he remembers that polling agents came to him with their appointment letters wherein the names of the polling agents are mentioned. This witness firmly stated that P.W. 3 did not come to the polling station nor did he report before him at the polling station as a polling agent of INC candidate. He had no knowledge whether P.W. 3 was prevented by PPA candidate Shri Markio Tado and his other workers from entering inside the polling booth. He had no knowledge whether P.W. 3 was given threat to his life by them. This witness categorically and firmly stated that "yes, I remember that the PPA candidate Markio Tado was present outside the polling booth." However, he stated that he can not say whether the PPA election candidate was present with his workers outside the polling station. He admitted that as per Ext. P/20 the elector named Markio Tama died on 10.5.2009 and it was correct that someone cast his vote, as it appeared at Sl. No. 319 of Ext. D/33 (Register of Voters in Form 17-A). 32. He admitted that as per Ext. P/20 the elector named Markio Tama died on 10.5.2009 and it was correct that someone cast his vote, as it appeared at Sl. No. 319 of Ext. D/33 (Register of Voters in Form 17-A). 32. The election petitioner, as P.W. 10, in regard to election pertaining to 2-Ruhi polling station, stated that the respondent returned candidate himself was present and involved in the act of booth capturing with his workers. The respondent returned candidate denied his presence and involvement but from the evidence of his witness D.W. 28, Shri Milli Monga(Presiding Officer), as stated earlier, the PPA candidate Markio Tado, was present outside the polling booth and it is clearly established that he was present during poll at 2-Ruhi polling station. If his presence as election candidate at 2-Ruhi polling station is proved, it is obvious that he was accompanied by some workers/supporters. An election candidate, whenever he moves around, particularly during the day of poll, he is always accompanied by his workers/supporters for obvious reasons. He may deny the presence of party workers or supporters but it is not acceptable at all. This Court has to believe and accept the evidence of D.W. 28 as he has deposed in the capacity of a Presiding Officer of the said polling station. Further evidence of election petitioner as P.W. 10 is that the PPA party candidate appointed fake polling agents at 2-Ruhi polling station to act as his polling agents. This statement is found to be true as his polling agent P.W. 3 stated that he did not sign any document as polling agent Such statement of fact is also squarely proved by the D.W. 16, Shri Markio Raju, polling agent of PPA party who stated that he knew Tamuk Taluk (P.W. 3) but he did not know who was the polling agent of INC party on the day of poll. D.W. 28 also supported the fact that Shri Tamuk Taluk, P.W. 3, did not come to the polling station and did not report as polling agent of INC candidate. The election petitioner as P.W. 10 stated that he came to know that vote was cast by impersonation at 2-Ruhi polling station for a person who had already expired. He produced the death certificate (Ext. P/20) of deceased Markio Tama who died on 10.5.2009. The election petitioner as P.W. 10 stated that he came to know that vote was cast by impersonation at 2-Ruhi polling station for a person who had already expired. He produced the death certificate (Ext. P/20) of deceased Markio Tama who died on 10.5.2009. This fact has been admitted by the Presiding Officer (D.W. 28) himself. It has been proved that somebody put thumb impression on the Form 17-A as if the said person was alive and cast his vote. This may be a single instance but it cannot be taken lightly inasmuch as it was a part of the illegal act of rigging which comes within the meaning of booth capturing. Another point which cannot escape the notice of the Court is that P.W. 28 as Presiding Officer of 2-Ruhi polling station stated that the poll time had to be extended from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. as the voters were still in the queue and he had to issue slips for "reverse voting" but the said Presiding Officer could not say the exact number of voters in the queue between 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. and this proves the veracity of his deposition about peaceful conduct of election at Ruhi polling station doubtful. 33. In respect of alleged incident at 5-Guchi polling station the petitioner examined one Smti Dangu Yano as P.W. 1. She had sworn a deposition-in-affidavit filed on 5.5.2010 stating inter alia that on 13.10.2009 she went to cast vote at 5- Guchi polling station at 7 A.M. but she found that the voters were not allowed to enter the polling booth by the workers of Markio Tado under the leadership of one Shri Dakme Tarak, Ex. ASM. The PPA workers were standing with dao, lathi and other dangerous weapons in front of the polling booth threatening the voters with dire consequences if they come in and cast their votes. She challenged them and forcefully entered inside the polling booth and cast her vote. Inside the polling booth she saw the said Sri Dakme Tarak with Shri Dakme Abo and Shri Dangu Taro. She also saw the said Dakme Tarak himself casting votes single-handedly. After casting her vote she waited outside the polling booth till 3 P.M. and nobody was allowed to enter inside the polling booth. The said affidavit has been proved by her and got it marked as Ext. She also saw the said Dakme Tarak himself casting votes single-handedly. After casting her vote she waited outside the polling booth till 3 P.M. and nobody was allowed to enter inside the polling booth. The said affidavit has been proved by her and got it marked as Ext. P/1 and her signature as Ext. P/1(1). In her oral evidence she reiterated the aforesaid statements made in deposition-on-affidavit. In cross examination she stated that she saw the Presiding Officer and three other polling officials but she did not see any polling agent in the polling booth. She did not lodge any complaint before any authority when she herself and other voters were prevented from entering the polling booth. She denied the suggestion that she did not see Shri Dakme Tarak, Shri Dakme Abo and Shri Dangu Taro near the EVM. She also denied the suggestion that she did not see the said Dakme Tarak was casting all the votes single-handedly. 34. Against the above evidence, the respondent examined three witnesses. D.W. 5, Shri Dakme Tarak denied the statement made by the P.W. 1 against him. According to this witness, poll at 5-Guchi polling station was held peacefully and there was no disturbance. There were policemen on duty besides the Presiding Officer and Polling Officers. The Micro Observer sent by the Central Election Commission visited the said polling station. The PPA candidate Markio Tado did not visit 5-Guchi polling station on the day of poll. In cross examination D.W. 5 stated that Dangi Tajik was the polling agent of the PPA party candidate in the said polling station. The workers of the PPA party were waiting outside the polling station. However, he does not know exactly how many PPA workers were waiting inside the polling station but he was sure that there were workers of both INC and PPA parties who were waiting for their turn to cast their votes. He denied the suggestion that there was rigging, booth capturing and kidnapping of polling officers at 5-Guchi polling station. 35. D.W. 12, Shri Dangu Taro is another witness examined by the Respondent No. 1. He was serving as Block Development Officer during election time and he cast his vote at 5-Guchi polling station. As per his evidence the election in question was held in a peaceful, free and fair manner. 35. D.W. 12, Shri Dangu Taro is another witness examined by the Respondent No. 1. He was serving as Block Development Officer during election time and he cast his vote at 5-Guchi polling station. As per his evidence the election in question was held in a peaceful, free and fair manner. He entered the polling station and signed the Voters Register and cast his vote in the EVM. He saw two armed policemen on duty who were standing near the gate of the polling station. He remained in the polling station from 7.3.0 A.M. to 3 P.M. and to his knowledge there was no complaint from anybody. He denied the allegation that he was involved in the alleged act of booth capturing and rigging of votes. He stated that he did not see Dakme Tarak and Darkrne Abo inside the polling station at the time he cast his vote. He saw only the Presiding Officer, Polling Officer and polling agents of the election candidates. According to him, P.W. 1, Smti Dangu Yano is not a trustworthy person as she had got married to as many as five husbands and she was responsible for killing her first husband in 1998 and she has made false statements against him. In cross examination he stated that he has been made a party to the election petition. He admitted that a joint written statement was filed in response to the election petition. As an educated person of the locality he remained at the polling station till 3 P.M. at a distance of 100 metre away from the polling booth appealing the voters to cast votes peacefully and in a free and fair manner. He denied the statement of P.W. 1 that she was prevented by the supporters of PPA candidate from going inside the polling booth. He further stated that P.W. 1 was in the queue behind some persons but she, overtaking many lady voters in the queue, wanted to enter the polling booth for casting her vote. She was asked by the voters to remain in the queue but she forcefully entered the polling booth and cast her vote without remaining in the queue. This D.W. denied the statement of P.W. 1 that he was inside the polling booth along with others. She was asked by the voters to remain in the queue but she forcefully entered the polling booth and cast her vote without remaining in the queue. This D.W. denied the statement of P.W. 1 that he was inside the polling booth along with others. He also denied that the supporters of PPA party candidate were present at the polling station armed with lathi, dao and other dangerous weapon. D.W. 20, Shri Sangey Dakpa was the Presiding Officer of 5-Guchi Polling Station. As per his evidence he reached the said polling station on 11.10.2009 at night. He came to the polling station in the morning along with polling officers and made necessary arrangements for the polling agents of the candidates. Before the actual poll started they conducted a mock poll in presence of polling agents. Thereafter, they examined the EVM which they found in order. Polling started at 7 A.M. and EVM was closed at the scheduled time. He maintained Presiding Officer's diary, Register of Voters in Form 17A and Accounts of Votes in Form 17C. He proved the said documents and got them marked as Ext. D/13 and Ext. D/14. He also identified/proved his signatures appearing on the said documents under objection from the counsel for the election petitioner. A Micro Observer from the Central Election Commission was sitting inside the polling booth who used to go inside and outside at some intervals. He does not know who was the polling agent of the INC candidate. He denied any "hulla" outside the polling booth at the time of poll. Although he does not know how to speak "Nishi" (tribe) dialect, he could gather that there was no disturbance outside the polling station during poll as no complaint was received from anybody. He is aware that no enquiry was ordered after 15.10.2009 to find out if there was any incident of booth capturing, rigging etc at 5-Guchi polling station. He remained at the said polling station on 13.10.2009 and left for Zero on 14.10.2009 in a vehicle by road. He denied the suggestion that genuine voters were not allowed to enter the polling booth and cast their votes and that the votes were cast single-handedly by some persons in the said polling station. 36. The petitioner, in respect of his allegation relating to 5-Guchi polling station, produced only one witness Smti Dangu Yano (P.W. 1). He denied the suggestion that genuine voters were not allowed to enter the polling booth and cast their votes and that the votes were cast single-handedly by some persons in the said polling station. 36. The petitioner, in respect of his allegation relating to 5-Guchi polling station, produced only one witness Smti Dangu Yano (P.W. 1). She is a voter of the said polling station and she appears to be an independent witness. Her status as an independent witness has not been questioned by the respondent inasmuch as no suggestion was put on her in this regard. However, through the evidence of D.W. 12 an attempt was made to dislodge the evidence of P.W. 1 by character assassination saying that she married to as many as five husbands and she was responsible for killing her first husband in 1998. This evidence reflecting the bad character of P.W. 1 has not been corroborated by any evidence. This Court is not concerned with the alleged bad character or criminal record unless it is shown that the witness has been hired or tutored by the interested party to make out a case for him. It has not been brought on record by the respondents that she was a supporter/workers of the election petitioner or she is an interested witness. In the cross examination the respondent's counsel did not make any attempt to show or prove that P.W. 1 was an INC party worker and supporter of the petitioner during the last election in question as because no suggestion was put to her to that effect. It is also not a case of the respondent that the P.W. 1 deposed before the Court against the respondents out of enmity or grudge. In my considered view, P.W. 1 is an independent witness who visited 5-Guchi polling station and cast her vote. She had seen the alleged incident in her own eyes and she faced the restraint from the workers of PPA party candidate. Her evidence cannot be discarded without giving any weightage. On the other hand, the returned candidate had adduced three witnesses. D.W. 5 has been impleaded as Respondent No. 14 in the election petition. His evidence, is particularly in respect of document marked as Annexure-5 to the election petition. Her evidence cannot be discarded without giving any weightage. On the other hand, the returned candidate had adduced three witnesses. D.W. 5 has been impleaded as Respondent No. 14 in the election petition. His evidence, is particularly in respect of document marked as Annexure-5 to the election petition. By adducing this evidence the respondent returned candidate made an endeavour to prove that the said Annexure (complaint) lodged with the A.R.O. about rigging at 5-Guchi Polling Station was false and fabricated. But from record, as already stated earlier, the election petitioner abandoned this Annexure and he does not rely on it and as such it was not proved and got exhibited during recording of evidence. This document Annexure-5 to the election petition cannot be looked into for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. No further discussion, therefore, is necessary in respect of evidence of D.W. 5 on the said document. 37. D.W. 12 being a Block Development Officer cannot be regarded as an independent witness. Moreover, from his evidence, it is found that he remained at 5-Guchi Polling Station from 7.30 A.M. to 3 P.M. on the date of poll. He was supposed to leave the polling station as soon as he cast his vote but he engaged himself in observing the proceedings of the election at the said polling station. As per his evidence he was a party to a joint written statement filed by all the respondents. He did not file any affidavit requesting the Court to delete his name as a party respondent. This clearly indicates that D.W. 12 is an interested party. He tried to discredit the evidence of P.W. 1 by making statement against her character and alleged criminal background. He had otherwise, as a Government servant, no business to support the Respondent No. 1. His evidence is not supported/corroborated by any independent witness. His evidence is also not supported by the evidence of handwriting and fingerprint experts (C.W. 2 and 3). The ultimate answer to this issue could be answered only after discussion and consideration of the report and evidence of the aforesaid Court witnesses, which I propose to do at the later stage. 38. The election petitioner examined himself as P.W. 10. His evidence is that there was no poll at 7-Roing polling station, but it was shown that seven hundred votes were cast. 38. The election petitioner examined himself as P.W. 10. His evidence is that there was no poll at 7-Roing polling station, but it was shown that seven hundred votes were cast. In that regard he lodged complaint through fax on 15.10.2009 (Ext. P/15) with the R.O. alleging booth capturing at 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing Polling Stations. He also lodged complaint through fax on 15.10.2009 (Ext. P/15) with the R.O. alleging similar allegation of booth capturing at six other polling stations, viz., 10-Yarda, 5-Guchi, 4-Tungmar, 8-Dotte, 6-Giba and 15-Richik polling stations. In his evidence he claimed that his case was supported by the evidence of P.W s. 7, 8 and 11, who have deposed that they lodged the complaint (Exts. P/8, P/10, P/12 and P/14) with the authorities concerned. The election petitioner also claims that he has been able to establish his case about kidnapping of polling staff and casting of votes single-handedly by the PPA party workers depriving the genuine voters of their right of franchise by means of booth capturing. His case of casting votes single-handedly by the polling agents/supporters/workers of the PPA party candidate finds support from the reports of the handwriting and fingerprint experts who were examined as Court witnesses No. 2 and 3. The expert opinion and the evidence of C.W. 2 and 3 belie the claim of the returned candidate who wants to escape himself from the aforesaid charge/allegation through the documentary and oral evidence of official witnesses (Presiding Officers). 39. Further evidence of respondent returned candidate is that on the day of poll (13.10.2009) he was at his native village Ruhi and he cast his vote at 2-Ruhi polling station located at his village. He did not visit any polling station on the said date of poll. It was not possible on his part to visit other polling stations as there was no motorable road in his constituency. It was not possible to reach the other polling stations except by foot-march and he was not present at any polling station, except 2-Ruhi, on the day of poll and he had no occasion to indulge in the alleged act of booth capturing or rigging of votes at 7-Roing polling station and other polling stations. He did not authorise any of his agents, workers or supporters to commit illegal act; nor did he give consent to commission of such illegal act as alleged in the election petition. He did not authorise any of his agents, workers or supporters to commit illegal act; nor did he give consent to commission of such illegal act as alleged in the election petition. The election petitioner totally failed to prove the allegations. His further case is that the petitioner furnished as many as 10 documents marked as Annexures 1 to 10 to his election petition making allegation of booth capturing, rigging etc but he has abandoned the Annexures 5, 6, 7 and 8 inasmuch as he did not get them proved and exhibited through the respective witnesses which amounts to withdrawal of the entire allegations of booth capturing, single-handed casting of votes, rigging etc he sought to make out or prove against the respondent returned candidate. The remaining Annexures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 were marked as Exts. P/8, P/13, P/10, P/14 and P/15 respectively but they failed to prove the allegation due to inherent defects in the said Annexures/exhibits inasmuch as the genuineness and bona fide of the said Annexures/Exhibits have not been proved; rather found doubtful and proved by the respondent as forged, manufactured and fabricated as a measure of afterthought for making out a false case against the returned candidate. Moreover, all the witnesses examined by the petitioner are interested and tutored ones, whose evidence have no evidentiary value for holding the respondent returned candidate guilty of corrupt practice. The returned candidate, therefore, claims that he has been able to demolish the evidence adduced by the petitioner by examining the Presiding Officers of all the polling stations concerned who have deposed corroboratedly that the election was conducted peacefully and without any disturbance. Besides, all the Presiding Officers deposed that there was no case of kidnapping of polling staff with EVMs, booth capturing, single-handed casting of votes and rigging in the polling stations. As regards the report/opinion of the handwriting and fingerprint experts, the respondent returned candidate stated that such expert opinion/report cannot be a conclusive evidence on the alleged capturing of booth by means of single-handed voting by the polling agents or party workers/supporters of PPA candidate. 40. As regards the report/opinion of the handwriting and fingerprint experts, the respondent returned candidate stated that such expert opinion/report cannot be a conclusive evidence on the alleged capturing of booth by means of single-handed voting by the polling agents or party workers/supporters of PPA candidate. 40. Issue No. 4:- Whether any offence of booth capturing and criminal intimidation was committed at 5(five) other polling stations, namely, (i) 15-Richik, (ii) 10 - Yarda, (iii) 8-Dotte, (iv) 6-Giba and (v) 4- Tungmar, by the persons named in column- 3 of the statement against each polling station as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the election petition? In support of his case the petitioner examined only one witness, namely, P.W. 5 Shri Rigio Tashok. He filed an evidence-on-affidavit on 5.5.2010 wherein he stated that he was a polling agent of the INC party and he came to 15-Richik polling station to report before the Presiding Officer. He saw some voters outside the polling booth. They were not allowed to enter the polling booth by the workers of respondent No. 1. However, he was allowed to enter the polling booth on perusal of his paper as polling agent. Entering the polling booth he saw some persons namely Shri Rigio Tapa, Shri Rigio Tatum, Shri Rigio Taw, Shri Sangio Taba and Lingdan Tachi. They threatened and forced him to cast some votes and thereafter they sent him out from the polling booth. No voter was allowed to cast vote at the said polling station. He did not sign any document as polling agent He proved the affidavit and his signature appearing thereon marked as Ext. P/5 and Ext. P/5(1) respectively. But on being cross examined he stated that he saw the Presiding Officer and three Polling Officers. He also stated to have seen two policemen, one of them with arms, in the premises of the polling station. As polling agent of the INC candidate he did not file any complaint with the Presiding Officer on the day of poll. He denied the suggestion that the allegations he brought and the evidence he gave are false. He also denied the suggestion that as because the INC party candidate secured 42 votes, there was no trouble in the said polling booth. 41. As a counter to the aforesaid evidence the Respondent No. 1 examined 4 witnesses. He denied the suggestion that the allegations he brought and the evidence he gave are false. He also denied the suggestion that as because the INC party candidate secured 42 votes, there was no trouble in the said polling booth. 41. As a counter to the aforesaid evidence the Respondent No. 1 examined 4 witnesses. D.W. 6 Shri Sangio Taba was the polling agent of PPA party candidate at the said polling station. He denied the allegations of booth capturing and rigging of votes at the said polling station. He stated that he carried a mobile phone and by the said mobile phone set he took one snap during the poll time inside the polling station. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised objection to production of the said photograph and marking it as an exhibit. He also video recorded the proceedings of the poll in the said polling station. The witness produced a video cassette before the Court but the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objected to production of video cassette and marking it material exhibit. This witness informed the Court that the PPA party worker, Rigio Tapa(respondent 9 in the election petition) expired after the election. He clarified that he did not make any video recording inside the polling booth. He also admitted that the video recording shows a portion of the proceedings outside the polling station only for about a minute and it does not cover the entire proceedings of the poll outside the polling station. He also admitted that unlike the Micro Observer he had no authority to cover the entire proceedings of the poll. 42. D.W. 13, Sangio Taba and D.W. 17 Sri Rigio Takang cast their votes at the said polling station. D.W. 13 was appointed as a third polling agent and D.W. 17 was appointed as a substitute polling agent of the returned candidate. They were present in the polling booth and as per their evidence the poll started and concluded peacefully without any disturbance. They have denied all the allegations made by the election petitioner. They have also denied that they were involved in the alleged booth capturing and rigging. This three witnesses in their evidence clearly admitted that they are the polling agents and they are not independent witnesses; rather interested and partisan witnesses. 43. They have denied all the allegations made by the election petitioner. They have also denied that they were involved in the alleged booth capturing and rigging. This three witnesses in their evidence clearly admitted that they are the polling agents and they are not independent witnesses; rather interested and partisan witnesses. 43. D.W. 17 is a party Respondent No. 20 in the election petition and naturally he has supported whatever statements have been made in the joint written statement filed by the Respondent No. 1 and others. D.W. 21, Shri Tamal Bhattacharjee, is a Government servant and he was appointed as Presiding Officer of 15-Richik polling station. He performed his duties as such at the said polling station. He proved Form 17 A (Register of Voters) and the Accounts of Votes in Form 17C maintained by him during poll which were marked as Ext. D/15 and D/16. He proved his signatures appearing thereon which were marked as Ext. D/15(1), D/15(2) and D/16(1) to (23). As per his evidence a mock poll was conducted in presence of the polling agents before the actual poll started. In his cross examination he stated that he obtained signatures or thumb impressions of the voters who cast their votes in Form 17A but it did not come to his notice about casting of votes by some persons by impersonation single-handedly. He did not notice even casting of votes repeatedly by any person in the said polling station. After the poll he along with polling staff and police personnel left 15-Richik polling station for Tali on foot march as there was no motorable road. The ARO did not enquire from him about the alleged incident of booth capturing or rigging. However, the ARO asked him whether election was conducted properly and peacefully. After 15.10.2009 no official enquiry was conducted to find out if there was any incident of booth capturing and rigging. The parties concerned have not produced any independent witness. They have examined their respective polling agents. 44. In respect of 10 - Yarda polling station the election petitioner examined Shri Yarda Chapa (P.W. 9). The evidence-in-affidavit filed by him has been proved and marked as Ext. P/11. In the said affidavit filed on 5.5.2010 he stated that as a polling agent of the INC candidate he reported before the Presiding Officer at about 7 A.M. at 10-Yarda polling station. The evidence-in-affidavit filed by him has been proved and marked as Ext. P/11. In the said affidavit filed on 5.5.2010 he stated that as a polling agent of the INC candidate he reported before the Presiding Officer at about 7 A.M. at 10-Yarda polling station. He found the workers of Respondent No. 1 inside and outside the polling booth and he was the only person for the Congress party inside the polling booth. He was forced to cast some votes for the Congress party and thereafter he was sent out forcefully from the polling booth. As stated in the said affidavit one Shri Yarda Tayo cast rest of the votes by himself single-handedly and none of the genuine voters were allowed to cast their votes by themselves. Polling booth was practically captured by the supporters of Markio Tado, Respondent No. 1. In his oral evidence(cross examination) he reaffirmed whatever he stated in the evidence-in-affidavit He clarified that the PPA polling agents and supporters forcefully drove him out from the polling booth and he denied that the said Shri Yarda Chapa(P.W. 9) did not cast vote single-handedly in the said polling station in favour of the returned candidate. 45. The respondent No. 1 also examined two witnesses; D.W. 10 and D.W. 22. D.W. 10, Shri Yarda Tayo, stated in his evidence that he was the polling agent of the returned candidate. As per his evidence no problem was created during the poll. Polling agents of both the candidates were present in the polling station. The INC candidate secured 72 votes and PPA candidate secured 300 votes in the said polling station. Voters cast their respective votes without any disturbance and there was no complaint from any corner; He testified that the Micro observer from the Central Election Commission visited the polling station on the day of poll who took snaps and recorded the proceedings of poll by video camera. There were policemen posted at the polling station. He denied the incident of booth capturing as alleged by the election petitioner. Had there been any incident of such booth capturing, the INC candidate would not have secured 72 votes in the said polling station. There were policemen posted at the polling station. He denied the incident of booth capturing as alleged by the election petitioner. Had there been any incident of such booth capturing, the INC candidate would not have secured 72 votes in the said polling station. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the supporters of PPA candidate forcefully cast votes inside the polling station by impersonation and the polling agent of INC candidate also forced to cast votes of some genuine voters by impersonation. He also denied that he single-handedly cast votes by impersonation and forced P.W. 9 to cast vote by impersonation for the INC candidate. 46. D.W. 22 is one Tarak Tatek. In his oral deposition he stated that he was appointed as Presiding Officer of 10- Yarda polling station and he discharged the duties and functions as the Presiding Officer. He held a mock poll at 7 A.M. at the said polling station in presence of polling agent before the poll started on 13.9.2009. The poll ended at 3 P.M. As Presiding Officer he maintained the diary, voters register in Form 17-A and Accounts of Votes in Form 17-C. He proved the said Form 17-A and Form 17-C and also his signatures on the said Forms maintained by him. Those documents were marked as Exts. D/18 and D/19 and the signatures as Ext. D/18(1) and D/18(2) and D/19(1) to (24). 47. D.W. 10 Sri Yarda Tayo deposed that he was the polling agent of PPA candidate at 10- Yarda polling station and he has been made party Respondent No. 6. One Shri Yarda Chapa was the polling agent of INC candidate. The INC candidate secured 72 votes and PPA candidate secured 300 votes. The voters made queue and cast their votes. There was no problem during the poll as the voters cast their votes without any disturbance. There was no complaint from any corner. The Micro Observer from the Central Election Commission visited the polling station on the day of poll who took snaps and recorded the poll proceeding by video camera. There were policemen posted at the polling station. There was no incident of booth capturing as alleged in the election petition. Had there been any incident of booth capturing, the INC candidate could not have secured 72 votes in the said polling station. There were policemen posted at the polling station. There was no incident of booth capturing as alleged in the election petition. Had there been any incident of booth capturing, the INC candidate could not have secured 72 votes in the said polling station. In course of cross examination he stated that two armed policemen were present inside the polling booth. Outside the polling station also two armed policemen were present. He denied the allegation that the genuine voters could not cast their votes. He denied the suggestion that the supporters of PPA candidate forcefully cast votes inside the polling station by impersonation and the polling agent of INC candidate was also forced to cast vote of some genuine voters by impersonation. He also denied the suggestion that he cast vote single-handedly by impersonation and also forced INC polling agent, P.W. 9, to similarly cast votes by impersonation for the INC candidate. 48. In support of allegations made in respect of 8-Dotte polling station, the petitioner examined P.W. 4, Sri Tagru Taya. This witness filed evidence-in-affidavit on 5.5.2010, which she proved and got it marked as Ext. P/4, stating that he went to cast vote at 8-Dotte polling station at about 7 A.M. but he found the polling booth was already captured by the workers of PPA candidate. He found all the voters standing outside the polling booth and they were not allowed to enter the polling booth. He saw only the polling staff and polling agents of both the parties inside the polling booth. Shri Tagru Thasa and Shri Tagru Mao were the polling agents of PPA party and INC party respectively. Later at about 10A.M. he came to know that the poll process had already completed without casting of votes by the voters. After completion of the required procedures the polling booth was closed at about 1 P.M. In his oral evidence (in cross examination) he stated that he did not see the PPA candidate, Markio Tado at the said 8-Dotte polling station on the date of poll. However, he saw the poling agents of both the contesting candidates. After the polling agents entered the polling booth, no other person could enter into the same. About 10/15 PPA workers did not allow the supporters of both INC and PPA party supporters to enter into the polling Station for casting their votes. However, he saw the poling agents of both the contesting candidates. After the polling agents entered the polling booth, no other person could enter into the same. About 10/15 PPA workers did not allow the supporters of both INC and PPA party supporters to enter into the polling Station for casting their votes. However, he stated that he did not see what was going on inside the polling booth. He denied the suggestion that election was conducted peacefully at the said polling station. He was physically prevented by the supporters of PPA party, amongst whom he named Shri Tapung Tagru, Mare Tagru and Tayer Tagru. He could know this three persons as party workers of PPA as they were seen campaigning for the PPA party. He denied that he was the INC party worker. As against the above evidence, the Respondent No. 1 examined D.W. 2, Sri Tagru Tasha (Kasha) who stated that he was the polling agent of the respondent No. 1. He knows both Takam Sorang and Markio Tado but he does not know what case is going on between them. He cast his vote at the Dotte polling station. The polling started at about 7.30 A.M. but he does not remember at what time he cast his vote. He saw the polling officer and the polling agents of the respective candidates at the polling station. He saw the voters in the queue. He found two policemen on duty at the polling station and the poll was conducted peacefully. The election petitioner, Shri Takam Sorang, is his co-villager but he does not know why he has made the complaint. In cross examination he stated that the population of the Dotte village would be about 217. There is no motorable road at his village. He reported the polling station at about 7 A.M. The polling agent of Congress-I candidate was already present at the polling station. Casting of vote commenced at around 7.30 A.M. in a peacefully atmosphere. So far he remembers the poll concluded at around 3.30 P.M. He denied the suggestion that there was disturbance in the polling station and asserted that the poll was peacefully conduced at the Dotte polling station. D.W. 27, Shri Tsewang Gyatso was the Presiding Officer of the said polling station. He proved the Register of Voters in Form 17-A which was marked as Ext. D.W. 27, Shri Tsewang Gyatso was the Presiding Officer of the said polling station. He proved the Register of Voters in Form 17-A which was marked as Ext. D/28 bearing his signatures which were also proved and marked as Ext. D/28(1) to (23). He also proved the Presiding Officer's dairy maintained by him in the said polling station exhibited as D/29 and his signatures marked as Ext. D/29(2). The Accounts of Votes maintained by him was proved and marked as Ext. D/30 and his signatures appearing thereon as Ext. D/30(1). He noticed no incident of casting votes by any person single-handedly in the said polling station. In cross examination, he stated that he allowed the polling agent of the candidates after examining their appointment letters. The poll started approximately at 7 A.M. The voters came inside and cast their votes individually. His polling officers were present at the time of casting of votes by the voters. He personally did not take/obtain the signatures or thumb impressions of the voters. It was done by his polling staff. He denied that there was any incident of booth capturing by the workers of returned candidate or that the voters in the queue outside the polling station were prevented from going inside and casting votes in the polling booth. He denied the statement of P.W. 4 that the poll concluded at 1 P.M. 49. In order to prove the allegation in regard to 6-Giba polling station the petitioner examined one Shri Tagru Taru as P.W. 6. This witness filed evidence-in-affidavit on 5.5.2012 which was proved and got marked as Ext. P/6. In the said affidavit he stated that on 13.10.2009, he along with Shri Tagru Tame, polling agent of INC candidate party went to 6-Giba polling station at about 7A.M. He saw about ten workers of Markio Tado inside the polling booth. He named some of them as Shri Tagru Tarang, Shri Tagru Tachak, Shri Tagru Taha, Shri Tagru Suroj and others. They proposed to cast few votes in favour of INC candidate by rigging. But he and his other INC workers did not agree with the said proposal. He named some of them as Shri Tagru Tarang, Shri Tagru Tachak, Shri Tagru Taha, Shri Tagru Suroj and others. They proposed to cast few votes in favour of INC candidate by rigging. But he and his other INC workers did not agree with the said proposal. Since they did not agree, the PPA party workers drove them out of the polling booth and thereafter they cast all the votes single-handedly as none of the voters could turn up for casting votes due to warning/intimidation given by the supporters of Markio Tado, PPA candidate. He was subjected to cross examination by the counsel for the respondent. His evidence is that the polling agents of INC candidate were allowed to go inside the polling station but he was not allowed by the PPA party workers to go inside the polling booth to cast his vote. The Gaonburas of the villages were also not allowed to go inside the polling booth. The PPA party workers Shri Tagru Tarang, Shri Tagru Tachak, Shri Tagru Taha, Shri Tagru Suroj and others prevented the Gaonburas and other voters from entering the polling booth. The aforesaid PPA party workers were constantly going inside and outside the polling booth carrying lathi and dao. He is the supporter of INC party candidate. He, however, denied that he made false allegation against the PPA candidate although no incident as alleged by the petitioner took place on the date of poll. He also denied that he made false deposition as a supporter of the INC candidate. To counter the aforesaid evidence, the returned candidate examined three witnesses. P.W. 9, Shri Tagru Tachak (Dochok) deposed that the election in question was held peacefully and he was the polling agent of PPA party candidate. He knows Shri Tagru Taru, the polling agent of INC candidate. He found the polling staff, three policemen on duty and polling agents of both the contesting candidates. He has been made one of the respondents in the election petition, but he does not know as to why and for what purpose the election petition has been filed. The allegations made in the election petition are all false and baseless in view of the fact that during poll one Micro Observer from the Central Election Commission visited the said polling station and no incident as alleged has been reported to him. The allegations made in the election petition are all false and baseless in view of the fact that during poll one Micro Observer from the Central Election Commission visited the said polling station and no incident as alleged has been reported to him. No complaint was made by any villager under the said 6- Giba polling station. This witness, in cross examination, strongly denied the suggestion that workers of PPA party prevented the supporters of INC candidate, who came to cast vote at the said polling station, from entering the polling station and that he was one of those PPA party supporters who obstructed the INC supporters from entering the polling booth. He also denied that the PPA party workers were carrying arms, lathi etc with them. He denied the suggestion that three persons namely Tagru Tarang, Tagru Taha and Tagru Suroj were inside the polling station and they cast votes by impersonating the genuine voters. 50. D.W. 11, Shri Tagru Tarang, Ex. ASM, was examined. He has been impleaded as party respondent No. 12 in the election petition. He stated that he came to 6-Giba Polling station at around 7.30 A.M. and remained till the poll was over. He was in the queue for casting the vote. There were Presiding Officer and polling officers inside the polling station. No such incident and disturbance, during poll, took place at the said polling station as alleged by the petitioner. There was one armed policeman on duty outside the polling station. He was not a polling agent of respondent No. 1. In cross examination he stated that he left the polling station for home at around 4 P.M. His house is situated at a distant place but his relative's house is situated near the polling station. He denied the suggestion that no voter turned up at 6-Giba polling station and taking advantage thereof, some supporters of PPA party including himself, single-handedly cast votes by impersonation. 51. D.W. 19, Shri Anong Chandra Perme was the Presiding Officer of 6-Giba polling station. His evidence is that he along with polling staff and police arrived at the said polling station at 2.30 P.M. of 12.10.2009 and in the evening they made arrangements in the Giba Primary School premises for holding the election on the next day. They were present at the polling station at 6.30 A.M. for conducting the election. His evidence is that he along with polling staff and police arrived at the said polling station at 2.30 P.M. of 12.10.2009 and in the evening they made arrangements in the Giba Primary School premises for holding the election on the next day. They were present at the polling station at 6.30 A.M. for conducting the election. The polling agents of contesting candidates came to the polling station. He conducted a mock poll at 6.55 A.M. in presence of polling staff, police, polling agents and Micro Observer. By 7A.M. all arrangements were made and completed for holding the election. The election was conducted as per the instructions and guidelines issued by the Election Commission. After closure of poll, EVMs were properly packed and sealed in presence of Micro Observer, polling staff and polling agents. As Presiding Officer he maintained Voters Register in Form 17-A which he proved and got marked as Ext. D/10. He also proved his signatures thereon as Ext. D/10(1) to (23). He maintained the Presiding Officer's diary which he proved and marked as Ext. D/11 and his signatures thereon as Ext. D/11(1), (2) and (3). In cross examination he admitted that, as he was quite new at the said polling station, he could not identify even a single person who came to cast their votes. However, the persons who came to cast their votes were identified by the polling agents. He did not notice any individual casting votes repeatedly in the polling station at the time of poll. He does not remember whether the ARO asked him any question regarding the alleged incident of booth capturing or rigging at 6-Giba polling station. To his knowledge no enquiry was ordered or held after 15th of October, 2009 regarding the alleged booth capturing and other election offence. After election he came to Tali on 14.10.2009. Thereafter, he left Tali on 15.10.2009 for Koloriang by availing helicopter service. The ARO concerned was with him while proceeding to Koloriang. 52. One Smti Tungam Yania was examined as P.W. 2 by the petitioner to prove his allegation in respect of 4- Tungmar polling station. She filed evidence-in-affidavit on 5.5.2010 which she proved and got it marked as Ext. P/2. In the said affidavit she stated that on 13.9.2009 at about 7 A.M. she went to cast vote at 4-Tungmar polling station. One Smti Tungam Yania was examined as P.W. 2 by the petitioner to prove his allegation in respect of 4- Tungmar polling station. She filed evidence-in-affidavit on 5.5.2010 which she proved and got it marked as Ext. P/2. In the said affidavit she stated that on 13.9.2009 at about 7 A.M. she went to cast vote at 4-Tungmar polling station. She saw a group of workers of Markio Tado outside the polling booth. She specifically saw Shri Tatung (Marbam) Taga going inside the polling booth. He did not come out till the completion of the poll. The said Tatung Taga cast all the votes single-handedly. She and others were not allowed to enter inside the polling booth by the workers of Markio Tado. One of them was in Army uniform standing at the entrance of the polling booth. He did not allow any of the voters to go inside the polling booth. She was cross examined by the counsel of the respondents. She reiterated the statement she made in the affidavit, Ext. P/2. She asserted that she cast her vote. She did not see any policeman on duty in the premises of the polling station. She did not lodge any complaint before any authority informing about the said facts. She further stated that she could not lodge the complaint because the whole road was blocked on 15.10.2009 by the party workers of Markio Tado and nobody was allowed to go to Tali. She did not inform the Circle Officer of Tali, the nearest officer from the polling booth, about the alleged incident She did not see Markio Tado, election candidate of PPA party at the said polling station. She was not a polling agent of the election petitioner; she came to the polling station only to cast her vote. She denied the suggestion that she and other voters were not prevented from entering the polling boom and casting their votes. She also denied the suggestion that Tatung(Marbam) Taga was not inside the polling booth and he came out only after completion of poll. 53. The Presiding Officer Shri Millo Punu of the said polling station was examined as D.W. 24. According to this witness, voters were allowed to come one by one after being identified by the polling agent and there was no disturbance or controversy at the said polling station during poll. 53. The Presiding Officer Shri Millo Punu of the said polling station was examined as D.W. 24. According to this witness, voters were allowed to come one by one after being identified by the polling agent and there was no disturbance or controversy at the said polling station during poll. No polling agent of the candidates made any complaint before him. The election was conducted peacefully. Poll came to an end at 5 P.M. and he closed the EVM at 5.30 P.M. in presence of polling agents and his staff left the polling station at about 6 P.M. along with the election materials including the EVM. He first came to Ruhi on foot and thereafter again came to Tali on foot on the next day i.e. 14.10.2009. They reached Tali on the same day i.e. 14.10.2009 in the afternoon. He testified that he maintained Register of Votes in Form 17-A. He proved the said register and his signatures thereon which were marked as Ext. D/25 and D/25(1) to (21). He maintained the Accounts of Votes in Form 17-C which were proved by him and marked as Ext. D/26 and also his signatures appearing thereon marked as Ext. D/26(1) and (2). As Presiding Officer he also maintained diary at the said polling station which he proved and got it marked as Ext. D/27 and his signatures thereon marked as Ext. D/27(1). On being cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner he stated that except his polling officers and polling staff he does not remember who were inside the polling station during poll. He also does not remember if the polling agents were present at the time of poll at 4- Tungmar polling station. He did not observe the casting of votes by voters in the polling booth. It was looked after by the polling officer. The signatures or the thumb impressions of the voters who cast their votes were obtained by the polling officer on Form 17-A. He denied to have noticed any person in Army uniform or casting of votes repeatedly by any person inside the polling station. He does not know D.W. 7. He also does not know if the said D.W. 7 remained inside the polling booth and cast votes single-handedly till completion of poll. He did not see any voter being prevented by somebody from entering the polling booth for casting votes. He does not know D.W. 7. He also does not know if the said D.W. 7 remained inside the polling booth and cast votes single-handedly till completion of poll. He did not see any voter being prevented by somebody from entering the polling booth for casting votes. He clarified that at Tali the ARO did not enquire from him about the conduct of election at 4- Tungmar polling station. He does not know whether any enquiry was conducted to go into the alleged incident of booth capturing and rigging at the said polling station. P.Ws. 5, 9, 4, 6 and 2 examined by the petitioner in respect of 15-Richik, 10 Yarda, 8-Dotte, 6-Giba and 4-Tungmar polling stations respectively are not independent witnesses as they are either his polling agents or workers/supporters. 54. The official witnesses examined by the Respondent No. 1 are not independent witnesses. D.Ws. 16, 13 and 17 are polling agents of Respondent No. 1. D.W. 10, 2, 9 and 7 are also polling agents of the Respondent No. 1 at 10-Yarda, 8-Dotte, 6-Giba and 4- Tungmar polling stations respectively. D.W. 11 was not the polling agent of Respondent No. 1 but he is an Ex ASM and supporter of PPA party candidate. D.Ws. 21, 22, 27, 19 and 24 are Presiding Officers of the respective polling stations. They are also not independent witnesses in real sense. Both the petitioner and the respondent returned candidate have failed to adduce evidence of independent witnesses. For want of evidence of some voters as independent witnesses belonging to respective polling stations Court is facing with difficulty in arriving at a finding and conclusion on this issue. It has to look for other evidence available on record. The Presiding Officers of the respective polling stations examined as D.Ws. 21, 22, 27, 19 and 24 but their evidence cannot be regarded as so cogent and sound for holding a view in favour of respondent No. 1. Their evidence could have been accepted as cogent and trustworthy provided the handwriting and fingerprint experts expressed no adverse opinion in their reports and oral evidence on the signatures and thumb impressions found on the Voters Registers in Form 17-A. The final finding on this issue would be made after making a review on the documentary and oral evidence of C.W. 2 and 3 who were examined as Court witnesses. 55. 55. ISSUE No. 5:- Whether Annexures-1 to 9 to the election petition are forged, fabricated, manufactured and afterthought, for the purpose of filing the election petition? There is no dispute that the election petitioner annexed those Annexures to his petition. He has not proved the Annexures-5 to 8 and, therefore, they were not marked as exhibits. However, he has proved the Annexures 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 and got them marked as Ext. P/8, P/10, P/13, P/14, P/15, P/18 and P/19 respectively. 56. Annexure-1 is a complaint dated 13.10.2009 addressed to the Executive Magistrate Officer, Tali, Kurong Kumey district regarding missing report of the poll team with ballot box of 7-Roing Polling Centre. The petitioner examined Sri Tagru Taro, P.W. 7. Addition to oral evidence, P.W. 7 stated that the said complaint was a photocopy of the original complaint. He proved the same and got it marked as Ext. P/18. No objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on marking the said document as Ext. P/18. 57. Annexure-2 is also a complaint dated 13.10.2009 addressed to the Executive Magistrate Officer, Tali, Kurung Kume district regarding missing of Roing polling station polling team along with the ballot box. This annexure was proved by Sri Tami Tayak (P.W. 11) which was marked as Ext. P/13 without any objection from the respondent side although it was stated in his evidence by the said witness that Annexure-2 is a photocopy. The said witness P.W. 11 also proved Annexure-4 in his oral evidence. He stated that Annexure-4 was a photocopy of the complaint dated 14.10.2009 submitted to the Assistant Returning Officer, 20- Tali(ST)A/Constituency with a request for re-poll at 7-Roing Polling Station. It was jointly signed by 5 I.N.C. party workers. It was marked as Ext. P/14 without any objection from the respondent side in spite of the disclosure that it was also a photocopy. 58. Annexure-3 is a complaint dated 13.10.2009 addressed to the A.R.O. reporting about rigging of votes at polling stations of 20-Tali Assembly Constituency demanding fresh poll. It was signed by I.N.C. party polling agent of 7-Roing Polling Station. One of the signatories, Sri Gichik Tachu (P.W. 8) proved the said complaint which was marked as Ext. P/10. The said P.W. 8 admitted that it was a photocopy. No objection was raised by the respondents at the time of exhibiting the said document 59. It was signed by I.N.C. party polling agent of 7-Roing Polling Station. One of the signatories, Sri Gichik Tachu (P.W. 8) proved the said complaint which was marked as Ext. P/10. The said P.W. 8 admitted that it was a photocopy. No objection was raised by the respondents at the time of exhibiting the said document 59. Annexure-9 is a complaint dated 15.10.2009 addressed to the R.O. regarding single handed casting of votes at 2-Ruhi Polling Station and kidnapping of polling team with E.V.Ms on the night of 12.10.2009 by P.P.A. supporters and not holding election at 7-Roing Polling Station. The said annexure was signed by the I.N.C. candidate, the present petitioner. This document was proved by the election petitioner while examining himself as P.W. 10. It was proved by him and marked as Ext. P/15. The petitioner lodged another complaint dated 15.10.2009 addressed to the R.O. regarding gross irregularities by way of single-handed casting of votes by the P.P.A. party supporters at 10-Yarda, 5-Guchi, 4-Tungmar, 8-Dotte, 6-Giba and 15-Richik polling stations. This complaint petition was not a part of the election petition inasmuch as it was not annexed to it. It was, however, included in the list of documents filed by the petitioner. The said complaint/document was proved by the petitioner during recording of evidence and it was marked as Ext. P/16. His signature thereon was proved and marked as Ext. P/16(1). The respondent side raised no objection on marking of the said documents. Since the above annexures/documents were marked as exhibits without any objection from the respondents, they are to be accepted as duly proved documents with evidentiary value. 60. I have already observed earlier that rest of the annexures (Annexure-5 to 8) were not relied upon by the petitioner. He had chosen not to prove them by adducing witnesses. This is the choice/option of the party concerned to rely or not to rely upon the documents he filed along with the plaint/petition or incorporated in the list of documents submitted by him. The Court would not refer to or rely on those documents produced by the petitioner. The Court is to exclude them from consideration to decide as to whether they are forged/fabricated/manufactured and afterthought. The Court is, however, concerned with the other annexures which have been proved and brought on record by marking them as exhibits. The Court would not refer to or rely on those documents produced by the petitioner. The Court is to exclude them from consideration to decide as to whether they are forged/fabricated/manufactured and afterthought. The Court is, however, concerned with the other annexures which have been proved and brought on record by marking them as exhibits. In regard to those proved and exhibited documents, in my considered view, no further discussion is required to consider and decide whether they are forged, fabricated, manufactured and afterthought in the eye of law. As soon as they were proved and marked as exhibits, they have attained the status of documents with evidentiary value which could be relied upon for deciding the relevant issues. 61. The fact of making complaints by the polling agents and party workers of I.N.C. and also by the I.N.C. party candidate himself is no longer in dispute in view of the evidence of R.O. and A.R.O. who were examined as D.W. 26 and D.W. 25 respectively by the returned candidate himself. In his evidence, the R.O. as D.W. 26 stated that after the poll, he received one written complaint from the I.N.C. candidate. He also received another complaint dated 16.10.2009 pertaining to 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing Polling Stations. He has also admitted that Ext. P/15 and P/16 are the complaints he received from the petitioner. The A.R.O. (D.W. 25) also admitted that during election, he received many complaints and counter complaints from various persons regarding conduct of election. He even admitted in his cross examination that the election petitioner lodged a verbal complaint before him. He also admitted that the complaints/Exts. P/15 and P/16 were endorsed to him with a covering letter with a direction to make an enquiry and submit factual report, if any, by 16.10.2009 and accordingly, he submitted a report as directed by the R.O. and in that view of the matter, there is no scope for the Court to make an enquiry to find out as to whether the annexures in question, particularly, those annexures which have been proved and exhibited during recording of evidence of the witnesses concerned. It must be accepted that the complaints filed by the petitioner and his polling agents and workers cannot be treated as forged, fabricated, manufactured and afterthought for the purpose of filing the election petition. It must be accepted that the complaints filed by the petitioner and his polling agents and workers cannot be treated as forged, fabricated, manufactured and afterthought for the purpose of filing the election petition. This issue is answered in the negative to the benefit/in favour of the election petitioner. 62. ISSUE No. 6:- Whether election of returned candidate Sri Markio Tado is liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Issues No. 6 has a close bearing with Issues No. 2, 3 and 4. I have discussed in details about the issues No. 2, 3 and 4 in the light of the evidence; both documentary and oral, available on record. The decisions on those 3 issues are dependant on the evidence of expert witnesses namely, C.W. 2 and 3. C.W. 2 is the handwriting expert. In his evidence, C.W. 2 stated that he received an order from the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bandardewa, Arunachal Pradesh authorising him to receive the exhibits from the Court. He received the following documents for verification. a) Register of voters in Form 17 -A pertaining to Richik Polling Station marked Ext. D/16.(two registers.) b) Register of voters in Form 17-A pertaining to Yarda Polling Station marked Ext. D/19. c) Register of voters in Form 17-A pertaining to Dote Polling Station Ex. D/28. d) Register of voters in Form 17A pertaining to Tungmar Polling Station marked Ext. D/25. e) Register of voters in Form 17 A pertaining to Guchi Polling Station marked Ext. D/13. f) Registers of voters in Form 17A pertaining to Roing polling Station, marked Ext. D/21 and D/22. g) Registers of voters in Form 17A pertaining to Giba Polling Station, marked Ext. D/10. h) Register of voters in Form 17/A pertaining to Ruhi Polling Station (three books) marked Ext. D/31, D/32 and D/33. 63. He verified the signatures found on the said registers of voters. On being cross examined by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, this C. W. stated that after examination of the questioned signatures, he submitted his opinion to the Deputy Registrar, Itanagar Permanent Bench of this Court. He recorded his opinion as under:-- I have recorded my opinion mat there are similarities in execution of the signatures indicating the presence of common hand(s) in their execution. He recorded his opinion as under:-- I have recorded my opinion mat there are similarities in execution of the signatures indicating the presence of common hand(s) in their execution. We have purchased video spectral comparator version 6000 from Foster & Freeman, U.K. We used the equipment for the purpose of examination of the questioned signatures. We purchased the equipment from London. There are some common movements of execution in the signatures which has led me to form the opinion. I examined questioned signatures from 98 to 162 pertaining to Ext. D/28. My opinion is same i.e." there are similarities in execution of the signatures indicating the presence of common hand(s) in their execution. I examined the questioned signatures from 163 to 307 pertaining to Ext. D/25 (Tungmar Polling Station). My opinion is same. I examined the questioned signatures from 308 to 527 pertaining to Ext. D/10 (Tungmar Polling Station). My opinion is same. I examined the questioned signatures from 528 to 928 pertaining to Ruhi Polling Station, Exts. D/31, D/32 and D/33. My opinion is same. I examined the questioned signatures from 929 to 1044 of Guchi Poling Station, Ext. D/13. My opinion is same. I have examined the questioned signatures from 1045 to 1074 of Yarda Polling station pertaining to Ext. D/19. My opinion is same. I have examined the questioned signatures 1075 to 1261 pertaining to Ext. D/21 and D/22 of Roing Polling Station. My opinion is same. My opinions are based on scientific examination of signatures through the VSC 6000. 64. From the above evidence, it is found that the handwriting expert (C.W. 2) examined all the questioned signatures from 1075 to 1261 found in Form 17-A of 7-Roing Polling Station and other polling stations. All the aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery, scientific aids are available at the Forensic Science Laboratory. He specifically opined that there are similarities in the execution of signature indicating the presence of common hands. 65. The finger print expert was examined as C.W. 3. In his evidence, he stated that he was directed by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the finger prints as referred to by this Court. After examination, he submitted the reports which were forwarded to the Deputy Registrar, Itanagar Permanent Bench of this Court He proved the said report with his signature thereon. Ext. C/3 is the expert report and Ext. After examination, he submitted the reports which were forwarded to the Deputy Registrar, Itanagar Permanent Bench of this Court He proved the said report with his signature thereon. Ext. C/3 is the expert report and Ext. C/3(1) is his signature. His report is based on finger print analysis and matching chart. In course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he stated that he examined: 27. 27 Nos. of questioned finger prints of 8 polling stations. A total number of 2727 finger prints were examined manually and 298 finger prints found readable and were taken out for examination, but on further examination only 125 finger prints found to be identical and compared and submitted to the opinion in respect of 125 finger prints only. A total number of 2602 questioned finger prints found to be blurred, indistinct, faint and short of ridge details. 66. In Question No. 6, the learned counsel for the petitioner asked as to whether it is possible that in a normal process of casting of votes, there should be large number of blurred, indistinct and faint finger prints of voters in Form-17-A, it was replied by him that "if the finger prints are either given by the subject or taken by the operator in a normal way, the natural size of the finger print will appear." He clarified that if the finger prints are blurred, faint, indistinct and short of required ridges, it would not be possible to furnish analytical opinion/report about the aforesaid 2602 finger prints and for the said reason, he mentioned in his report that 2602 fingerprints were not fit for giving any opinion. On a suggestion put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he does not accept that his opinion/report is not conclusive. He (C.W. 3) asserted that: the finger print science is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt, as held in a decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1708 : Abadhraj Dukharam Pande v. State of Maharashtra. On close perusal of the finger prints, the expert report and his evidence, it is found that altogether 508 questioned finger prints in 2 books of Form 17-A, out of which 11 Nos. of questioned finger prints were found to be fit for examination. In Column No. 11(a), 3 Nos. of finger prints at Sl. On close perusal of the finger prints, the expert report and his evidence, it is found that altogether 508 questioned finger prints in 2 books of Form 17-A, out of which 11 Nos. of questioned finger prints were found to be fit for examination. In Column No. 11(a), 3 Nos. of finger prints at Sl. No. 185, 189 and 191 of Book-I of 7-Roing Polling Station belong to the same finger of the some persons and the prints are identical. In Column No. 11(b), 8 Nos. of finger prints at Sl. No. 583, 585, 590, 597, 603, 643, 646 and 469 of Book No. 2 of 7-Roing Polling Station belong to the same finger of the same person and the prints are identical. When the finger print expert was asked, showing him his report Ext. C/2 and C/3, he stated that out of 2727 questioned finger prints of all the 8 polling stations, 2602 questioned finger prints are indistinct, blurred and faint. He was also asked as to whether he examined all the questioned finger prints. His answer was that he examined all the 2727 questioned fingerprints of all the 8 polling stations, but due to lack of required ridge characteristics, and unnatural appearance of thumb impressions on Form 17-A, 2602 questioned finger prints have been found indistinct, blurred and faint impressions. According to him, those questioned finger prints were not fit for analytical examination. On being asked, why such things happen or whether is it possible if normal process of casting of votes had taken place. He had shown an example in one set of Form-17A containing blurred, indistinct and faint impressions in the open Court and specifically deposed that some of blurred, indistinct and faint impressions are not thumb impressions but are finger tips and such thing cannot happen if a normal process of casting of votes takes place. He further clarified that if the normal process of casting of vote has taken place and the operator has obtained thumb impression of a person, natural size of the thumb impression will appear on Form 17-A. It may happen if it is done hurriedly and intentionally by foul play. The same opinion, according to C.W. 3, is applicable to all other polling stations relating to allegation of casting of vote single-handedly by way of booth capturing and rigging. 67. The same opinion, according to C.W. 3, is applicable to all other polling stations relating to allegation of casting of vote single-handedly by way of booth capturing and rigging. 67. Issue No. 6 is the core issue involved in this election petition. Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel, submits that the election petitioner has been able to prove all the charges of corrupt practice against the returned candidate and the Court is in a position to decide all the issues in the positive in favour of the petitioner. His basic submission is that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal and the standard of proof requited is akin to that of proving a criminal or a quasi criminal case. But the strict principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt is to be avoided. In election case, it should not be extended or stretched to such an extent as to make it well-nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. He puts his reliance on key case law in Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh & Ors., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 649 and other cases reaffirming the said principle of law, manly, in S. Harcharan Singh v. S. Sajjan Singh & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 370 ; P.C. Thomas v. P.M. Ismail; AIR 2010 SC 905 and Govind Singh v. Harchand Kaur; (2011) 2 SCC 621 . 68. Secondly, he submits that there is no place for hyper technicality in proving the allegation of corrupt practice in election case. The same should be eschewed. However, the petitioner must be able to establish the charge to the satisfaction of the Court. The election petitioner submitted/filed photocopies of the complaint petitions. Those documents are to be accepted because the originals are not in the possession of the petitioner or the makers of the complaints and lying with the R.O. or A.R.O. concerned. In support of the above submission, he has relied on a decision rendered in M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 712 wherein the issue of admissibility of true copy of the original document has been discussed and held that only in exceptional case, secondary evidence would be admissible. 69. Thirdly, he submits that the alleged commission of corrupt practice in presence of the returned candidate at 2-Ruhi polling station has been proved by the documentary and oral evidence on record. 69. Thirdly, he submits that the alleged commission of corrupt practice in presence of the returned candidate at 2-Ruhi polling station has been proved by the documentary and oral evidence on record. In his evidence, the returned candidate has admitted that he was present at 2-Ruhi polling station as he belongs to the said place. The petitioner is no longer required to prove the said fact. The question is whether a returned candidate remaining present at the said polling station and as the alleged incident of booth capturing and rigging took place in his presence, no further evidence is required to prove his consent and involvement in the said act. From the series of similar acts allegedly committed by the polling agents, workers and supporters at several other polling stations, it can be inferred that the said acts were committed in a calculated and planned manner and not in haphazard manner. They had done the said act with a definite design, that is to return the Respondent No. 1, in the election. The consent of the P.P.A. candidate, the Respondent No. 1 could be inferred in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shiopat Singh v. Harish Chandra & Anr., reported in AIR 1960 SC 1217 . 70. Fourthly, he submits that the allegation of booth capturing and rigging of votes at all the 8 polling stations, particularly, at 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling stations, has been proved by documentary and oral evidence of witnesses corroborated by evidence of C.W. 2 and 3. In Ext. C/1, C.W. 2 accounted the questioned signatures at 1854 in total with specific opinion that there are similarities in the execution of signature including the presence of "common hand(s)" in their execution. As per Ext. C/3, C.W. 3 found 2727 number of questioned finger prints. Thus, total figure of questioned signatures and questioned finger prints comes to 4581. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the election petitioner has been able to prove that the election was materially affected by such corrupt practice resorted to by the returned candidate and election of the returned candidate is liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the R.P. Act. 71. Countering the above submission, Mr. 71. Countering the above submission, Mr. Pertin, submits that this issue could be determined only after assessment of deposition of witnesses along with the documentary evidence (exhibits) produced by both the parties. The Court is bound to discuss the issue and answer them by assigning reasons. If the answer of the Court to all the issues is in favour of the returned candidate, the election petition must be dismissed and in that case, the election of the returned candidate cannot be declared as void under Section 100 of the R.P. Act. 72. Referring to judgment and order rendered by the Apex Court in Markio Tado v. Takam Sorang; (2012) 3 SCC 236 , it is submitted by Mr. Pertin that the present election petition is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as it has been held therein mat booth capturing involves use of force and intimidation. There being no pleadings and issue framed on it no further discussion is required. In other words, the Court cannot enter into trial of an issue which is not pleaded in the petition. He further argues that in the said case, it has already been held that the allegation made in the election petition comes under the fold of "improper reception of the votes" and booth capturing is a separate category of corrupt practice falling under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the R.P. Act, which is different from the booth capturing and which is also a separate category of corrupt practice, namely improper reception of votes is held to be different from 'booth capturing', which is a separate category of corrupt practice under Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A of the R.P. Act. It has also been held that the respondent election petitioner filed the election petition only on ground of booth capturing and not on the basis of "improper reception" of votes and he cannot be permitted to improve upon it from stage to stage. Moreover, the election petition making allegation of corrupt practice is lacking in material facts and particulars which are required to be furnished under Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the R.P. Act. 73. Referring to Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 310 , he further submits that in absence of pleadings, the party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. 73. Referring to Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 310 , he further submits that in absence of pleadings, the party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. So also, failure on the part of the election petitioner to state even a single material fact, entails dismissal of election petition. In view of the above law, as settled by the Apex Court, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and there is no scope for declaring the election of the returned candidate as void as demanded by the petitioner. 74. It is indisputable that the evidence of handwriting and finger print experts are not conclusive evidence. Such evidence cannot be relied upon for coming to a conclusion that the returned candidate indulged in rigging of votes by impersonation. Such inconclusive evidence cannot prove the signatures of the persons concerned. As held in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 the expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if even taken the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Next, he relied on Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa; AIR 1963 SC 1728 , wherein it is held that the evidence given by the experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is after all, opinion evidence. 75. How and why an election of returned candidate stands liable to be declared void is provided under Section 100 of the R.P. Act, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below - Section 100-Grounds for declaring election to be void [(1)} Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion (a)*** (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c)*** (d) That the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (i) *** (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) *** (iv) *** The High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. 76. 76. What would constitute corrupt practice has also been described elaborately under Section 123 of the R.P. Act. Section 123(8) of the said Act speaks about booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person. As per explanation (1) to the said Section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. Explanation (4) provides that for the purpose of Clause - (8), "booth capturing" shall have the same meaning as in Section 135A of the R.P. Act. 77. I have already discussed about the kidnapping of polling staff with EVM in respect of 7-Roing polling station and also booth capturing at 2-Ruhi and 5-Guchi polling stations and other five polling stations to decide the issues No. 2, 3 and 4 in the light of the documentary and oral evidence available on record. A question has been raised by the returned candidate that as per judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Markio Tado(supra), the present case does not fall under 'booth capturing' as mentioned under Section 123(8) of the R.P. Act inasmuch as booth capturing involves use of force and intimidation which is absent in the instant case. Offence of booth capturing under Section 135(A) of the R.P. Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but it may extend to 5 years and with fine. Offence of booth capturing under Section 135(A) of the R.P. Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but it may extend to 5 years and with fine. In the explanation to Section 135A it is provided that for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 135A and Section 20-B, "booth capturing" includes, among other things, all or any of the following activities, namely:-- (a) seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers or voting machines and doing of any other act which affects the orderly conduct of elections; (b) taking possession of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons and allowing only his or their own supporters to exercise their right to vote and prevent others from free exercise of their right to vote; (c) coercing or intimidating or threatening directly or indirectly any elector and preventing him from going to the polling station or a place fixed for poll to cast his vote; (d)........................................... (e)............................................ 78. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the standard of proof of allegation of corrupt practice in election case, there is no dispute that the election petitioner must furnish the material facts and material particulars disclosing the required information the respondent is to meet. I have already discussed about these aspects of the matter in details in answering Issue No. 1 and held the election petition is maintainable in its present form. The matter clinches on standard of proof in establishing the allegation of corrupt practice. In this regard, it would be sufficient if the latest case Govind Singh (supra) is pressed into service. It was also a case of corrupt practice under the fold of undue influence and bribery within the meaning of the R.P. Act. It is held therein that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature, as its consequence is not only to render election of the returned candidate void, but in some cases, might incur disqualification from contesting even the next election. It is held therein that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature, as its consequence is not only to render election of the returned candidate void, but in some cases, might incur disqualification from contesting even the next election. The evidence led in support of corrupt practice is required to be not only cogent and definite but the charge levelled must be established to the satisfaction of the Court and moreover, in such a case, the standard of proof is like that of the criminal trial which, requires strict proof of the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on the candidate who alleges corrupt practice and that the burden does not shift. There is no dispute on the aforesaid position of law. However, it has been held in the aforesaid case that it does not imply that the returned candidate is absolved from his liability to prove forth the evidence on record who controvert the case of the petitioner, particularly, to prove such facts which are within special knowledge of the elected candidate. Furthermore, it is held that while insisting upon the standard of strict proof beyond reasonable doubt the Courts are not required to extend or stretch to such an extreme extent as to make it well nigh impossible to prove any allegation of corrupt practice. 79. I have already appreciated the evidence of witnesses adduced by the parties. I have also considered the documents proved and exhibited by the parties during recording of evidence. Except in the case of 2-Ruhi polling station, there is no strict proof on the presence of Respondent No. 1 at the polling stations in question. The evidence is that there is no motorable road communication and the polling stations could be visited/reached on foot march only and it is difficult for any individual to cover the polling stations on the same day. As per the evidence of returned candidate, his polling station, 2-Ruhi is adjacent to 7-Roing polling station and they fall under the same revenue circle. In his deposition in evidence, Ext. As per the evidence of returned candidate, his polling station, 2-Ruhi is adjacent to 7-Roing polling station and they fall under the same revenue circle. In his deposition in evidence, Ext. D/2, he has given the distance from his village Ruhi (2-Ruhi polling station) to different polling stations as under:- 1) From 2-Ruhi to 4-Tungmar polling station (3 hour-foot march) - 10km 2) From 2-Ruhi to 4-Guchi polling station (2 days foot march) - 40km 3) From 2-Ruhi to 6-Giba polling station (2 days foot march) - 35km 4) From 2-Ruhi to 7-Roing polling station (4 hour-foot march) - 15km 5) From 2-Ruhi to 8-Dotte polling station (5 hour-foot march) - 17km 6) From 2-Ruhi to 10-Yardo polling station (one day foot march) - 25km 7) From 2-Ruhi to 15-Richik polling station (2 days foot march) - 50km 80. From the above distance disclosed by the Respondent No. 1, 7-Roing polling station is reachable in 4 hours foot march. It was possible on the part of the Respondent No. 1 and some of his party workers/supporters to arrive at 7-Roing polling station during the poll time. Similarly, 8-Dotte polling station being at a distance of 17 kilometer is reachable within 5 hours foot march. It was within communicable reach of the returned candidate and it was quite possible on his part to depute some of his workers/supporters from Ruhi or send necessary instructions to his workers to execute the act of booth capturing or rigging of votes at 8-Dotte polling station. The respondent returned candidate is an Engineering Graduate and he resigned the post as Engineer to contest the election. He had his own calculated plan and accordingly, he could make better arrangement than any other ordinary candidate for winning the election. It is not necessary that the Respondent No. 1 as an election candidate must visit or cover or supervise his party workers at every polling station on the day of poll. It is in the evidence that the returned candidate attended a well responded dinner party hoisted by D.W. 8. From his evidence, it appears that the persons attended included the elderly and leading persons of the Assembly Constituency concerned who were determined to return the Respondent No. 1 due to failure of the petitioner in developing the area. It is in the evidence that the returned candidate attended a well responded dinner party hoisted by D.W. 8. From his evidence, it appears that the persons attended included the elderly and leading persons of the Assembly Constituency concerned who were determined to return the Respondent No. 1 due to failure of the petitioner in developing the area. It is not possible to prove that the returned candidate gave his consent or authorised his supporters and party workers to take steps to return him by indulging in corrupt practice. It is well nigh impossible but it is not impossible to draw an inference taking into account the attending facts and circumstances and the evidence on record that mere was implied consent of the respondent returned candidate. Drawing of such inference against the returned candidate is not impermissible in view of the settled law laid down in Govind Singh (supra). It is no doubt quite clear that the petitioner could not prove the allegation of corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt but he has been able to satisfy this Court that he could adduce cogent and definite evidence from which the inference of guilt could be drawn. 81. There is no dispute that the opinion of the experts is not conclusive and nothing but an opinion evidence. But in the Ishwari Prasad Misra (supra) it is also held that in considering the question as to whether the evidence given by the witness should be accepted or not, the Court has no doubt to examine whether the witness is an interested witness and to enquire whether the story deposed by him is probable and whether it has been shaken in cross examination. The cases cited by the respondents are not election cases. Those are the matters raised in civil cases under the CPC regarding proof of handwriting/signature on particular documents, whereas the instant case is concerned with the thousands of signatures and finger prints of voters, proof of those thousands of signatures and thumb impressions in the strict sense as provided under the law is not possible nor advisable. It was also not the intention of the Court to prove the questioned signatures and finger prints and to find out whether genuine voters cast their votes. It was also not the intention of the Court to prove the questioned signatures and finger prints and to find out whether genuine voters cast their votes. In view of the allegation of booth capturing and rigging of votes, this Court intended to satisfy itself as to whether there was possibility of casting votes by some persons depriving the genuine voters. It is already discussed and found that Form 17-A of the respective polling stations contained large number of doubtful/questioned signatures and thumb impressions and the experts have given their specific opinion in the positive. Such expert opinion has been corroborated by attending circumstances on the day of poll. Form 17-A is a document recording the names, signatures and thumb impressions of the voters who turned up and cast their votes at a particular polling station on the day of the poll. The said Form is returned/submitted along with the erection material to the RO or ARO and kept under the safe custody of the District Election Office. The presiding officer in their evidence, have denied the incident of alleged boom capturing and/or rigging in the polling stations, but the documents, namely Forms 17-A speak for themselves. The opinion of the experts could have been ignored or disbelieved if doubtful/questioned signatures and thumb impressions were just few and they would not have materially affected the election. The existence of thousands of questioned signatures and thumb impressions is a matter of grave concern and it aroused doubt on conduct of free, fair and peaceful election in 8 polling stations, as claimed by the returned candidate and his witnesses. C.Ws. 2 and 3 are the official witnesses summoned by the Court. They are independent witnesses and they have adduced their evidence purely based on analysis made and report submitted by them. In my considered view, the Court can look into and rely on the reports and opinions of the experts without throwing them away as merely inconclusive opinion evidence. 82. As per my findings in respect of issue No. 2, it is already held that the petitioner could not prove cogently a case of kidnapping of polling staff with EVMs to attract the explanation (a) to Section 135A (1) but sufficient evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to attract (b) and (c) to the explanation of 135A. 82. As per my findings in respect of issue No. 2, it is already held that the petitioner could not prove cogently a case of kidnapping of polling staff with EVMs to attract the explanation (a) to Section 135A (1) but sufficient evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to attract (b) and (c) to the explanation of 135A. The Presiding Officers or the polling staff have made no complaint about taking possession of the polling stations by any person or persons but the petitioner has led evidence to the effect that the supporters/workers of the returned candidate prevented others from entering into the polling booth and thereby deprived even the genuine voters of their right to vote. The evidence; on record is that PPA polling agent and supporters/workers at eight polling stations in question managed to prevent the genuine voters from entering into the polling booths and cast the votes single-handedly by the supporters/workers of the PPA candidate inside the polling booths. The use of force, coercion or intimidation or threatening directly or indirectly could not be made out by the petitioner but it is proved that they have managed casting of votes in such a manner that no direct use of force and intimidation was required. Use of force and intimidation depends upon the attending circumstances and ground situation. In certain situation use of force, coercion or intimidation may not be necessary. In an area inhabited mostly by illiterate tribal people/voters without road communication and telecommunication, it is hardly expected that there would be strong protest by an organised section of people against deprivation of right to vote. Such a situation can be exploited by more conscious group of contender in election by manipulation. The election petitioner has used the term "rigging of votes" by returned candidate. The term rig or rigging has not been defined in the R. P. Act. Such word has not been used in the election statute but it is popularly and commonly used by the people which is synonymous to booth capturing. The dictionary meaning of the word rig is to manipulate unscrupulously. Rigged also means managed or fixed fraudulently. As per the dictionary meaning, rigging involves unscrupulous or fraudulent act of manipulation. It is an organised, planned and articulated act to achieve a positive result undeservingly without using any force, coercion or intimidation. The election petitioner (sic. The dictionary meaning of the word rig is to manipulate unscrupulously. Rigged also means managed or fixed fraudulently. As per the dictionary meaning, rigging involves unscrupulous or fraudulent act of manipulation. It is an organised, planned and articulated act to achieve a positive result undeservingly without using any force, coercion or intimidation. The election petitioner (sic. returned candidate) for the above reasons, cannot save himself from the mischief of section 123(8) of the R.P. Act. Having found that the election petitioner (sic. returned candidate) indulged in corrupt practices under Section 123(8) of the R.P. Act, his election which is under challenge, is liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the R.P. Act. Issue No. 6 stands decided in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, issues No. 2,3 and 4 are hereby, decided in the affirmative and in favour of the election petitioner. 83. Issue No. 7:- Whether the petitioner received majority of valid votes but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice is entitled to declaration that he has been duly elected under Section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951? For obtaining an order of declaration of being elected under Section 101 of the R.P. Act, the election petitioner has to satisfy the Court that- (a) In fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of valid votes or (b) That but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes. 84. It is observed that the scheme of Section 100 of the R.P. Act, especially Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 thereof clearly prescribes that in spite of validity of grounds contemplated by Sub-Clause (i) to (iv) of Clause (d), election of returned candidate shall not be voided unless and until it is proved that the result of election so far as it concerns a returned candidate is materially affected. The law is well settled by now through several reported decisions of the Apex Court that the election of a returned candidate should not normally be set aside unless cogent and convincing reasons are found. The law is well settled by now through several reported decisions of the Apex Court that the election of a returned candidate should not normally be set aside unless cogent and convincing reasons are found. It is the dictum of the Apex Court as expressed through several decisions including R.P. Moidutty-(supra) that election of successful candidates is not to be set aside lightly inasmuch as, it is the basic to the law of election and election petition that in a democracy, mandate of the people as expressed at the hustings, must prevail and be respected by the Courts which has been repeated and followed in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri; (2011) 2 SCC 532 . 85. The returned candidate enclosed a copy of the return of election in Form 21E as Annexure-5 to his written statement. The petitioner also relied upon the said return of election which was proved and marked as Ext. P/18. The said return of election is reproduced for convenience and ready reference - "Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (Statutory Rules and Order) (FORM 21E) (See Rule 64) Return of Election Election to the Legislative Assembly from the 20- Tali(ST) Assembly Constituency. RETURN OF ELECTION Sl. No. Name of Candidate Party affiliation Number of voters polled 1 Sri Takam Sorang INC 2548 2 Er. Markio Tado PPA 5261 Total 7809 Total number of Election = 9054 Total number of valid votes polled = 7809 Total number of rejected votes = 1 Total number of tendered votes = 0 I declare that Er. Markio Tado of 20-Tali(ST) A/C has been duly elected to fill the seat. Place:- Koloriang Sd/- Illegible Date:- 22.10.09 Returning Officer, 20/Tali(ST) Assembly Constituency 22.10.09” 86. A final result sheet in Form 20 in respect of 20-Tali(ST) Assembly Constituency has also been brought on record which was proved and marked as Ext. P/19. This document (final result sheet) is also reproduced for convenience and ready reference. FORM 20 Final Result Sheet Election to the Legislative Assembly Constituency. PART I Total number of Electors in Assembly Constituency:- 9054 Name of the Assembly Constituency:- 20- Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. Sl. No. Sl. No. of Polling Station No. of valid voters cast in favour of Total valid voters No. of rejected votes Total No. of Tendered votes Sri Takam Sorang INC Er. PART I Total number of Electors in Assembly Constituency:- 9054 Name of the Assembly Constituency:- 20- Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. Sl. No. Sl. No. of Polling Station No. of valid voters cast in favour of Total valid voters No. of rejected votes Total No. of Tendered votes Sri Takam Sorang INC Er. Markio Tado PPA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 Tali 185 416 601 0 601 0 2 2 Ruhi 1 1196 1197 0 1197 0 3 3 GIMBA 76 128 204 0 204 0 4 4 Tungmar 53 347 400 0 400 0 5 5 Guchi 12 289 301 0 301 0 6 6 Giba 40 373 413 0 413 0 7 7 Roing 3 697 700 0 700 0 8 8 Dotte 1 204 205 0 205 0 9 9 Homi 112 337 449 0 449 0 10 10 Yarda 72 300 372 0 372 0 11 11 Nobia 365 0 365 0 365 0 12 12 Lukbia 151 118 269 0 269 0 13 13 Zara 335 7 342 0 342 0 14 14 Keba 346 1 347 0 347 0 15 15 Richik 42 357 399 0 399 0 16 16 Tedung 361 5 366 0 366 0 17 17 Pipsorang 73 64 137 0 137 0 18 18 Korsang 62 87 149 0 149 0 19 19 Raha 146 234 350 0 350 0 20 20 Korapu 110 70 180 0 180 0 Total No. of votes recorded at polling station 2546 5230 7776 0 7776 0 No. of votes recorded on postal ballot papers 2 31 33 1 34 0 Total votes polled 2548 5261 7809 1 7810 0 Place:- Koloriang Sd/- Illegible Date:- 22.10.09 Returning Officer 20-Tali(ST) Assembly Constituency” 87. As per Ext. P/18 (return of election), the petitioner received 2548 votes while the respondent No. 1 received 5261 votes. The difference or margin of vote is (5261 - 2548) = 2713. 88. There are 20 (twenty) polling stations in the 20-Tali ST Assembly Constituency. In eight polling stations, namely, 2-Ruhi, 4-Tungmar, 5-Guchi, 6-Giba, 7-Roing, 8-Dotte, 10-Yarda and 15-Richik, which are under challenge, the election petitioner received only 224 votes while the returned candidate received 3763 votes out of total 3987 total valid votes. The difference of margin is (3763-224) = 3539. 88. There are 20 (twenty) polling stations in the 20-Tali ST Assembly Constituency. In eight polling stations, namely, 2-Ruhi, 4-Tungmar, 5-Guchi, 6-Giba, 7-Roing, 8-Dotte, 10-Yarda and 15-Richik, which are under challenge, the election petitioner received only 224 votes while the returned candidate received 3763 votes out of total 3987 total valid votes. The difference of margin is (3763-224) = 3539. In the remaining twelve polling stations which are not under challenge, the petitioner received 2324 votes and the PPA candidate/respondent No. 1 received 1498 votes; thereby the petitioner led by a margin of (2324-1498) : 826 votes. The respondent No. 1, through the evidence of his witnesses tried to project that the election petitioner during last 10 years as MLA was sitting idle at Itanagar and totally neglected the development of the constituency and he has become unpopular amongst the electors and people. But from the evidence on record it appears that the petitioner could master majority of votes by a margin of 826 in the other segment of the constituency comprising 12 (twelve) polling stations. 89. From the evidence of C.W. 2, it is found that the total questioned signatures in 8 polling stations in question, comes to 1473. After examining the questioned signatures, as per the evidence of C.W. 2 there are similarities in execution of signatures indicating presence of common hand(s). 90. C.W. 3, fingerprint expert, examined 2602 questioned fingerprints which were found to be blurred, indistinct, faint and short of ridge details. After verification he found at least 125 questioned fingerprints to be identical with each other. In the opinion of the fingerprint expert, if the finger prints are either given by the subject or taken by an operator in a normal way, the natural size of finger print would appear but the 2602 questioned fingerprints are not in natural size; rather they are made from finger tips. There is no doubt or at least it can be inferred that 1473 questioned signatures and 2602 questioned fingerprints which come to 4075 decide the fate of the candidates. The questioned signatures and questioned fingerprints are the results of calculated action of the respondent No. 1 and his polling agents and supporters/workers to return the respondent No. 1. There is no doubt or at least it can be inferred that 1473 questioned signatures and 2602 questioned fingerprints which come to 4075 decide the fate of the candidates. The questioned signatures and questioned fingerprints are the results of calculated action of the respondent No. 1 and his polling agents and supporters/workers to return the respondent No. 1. It is not possible to ascertain how many votes the election petitioner could have received out of those 4075 votes but looking at the lead the petitioner had taken in the other segment of constituency comprising 12 polling stations, he would have received more votes than the respondent No. 1 but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices as mentioned above. 91. The aforesaid questioned signatures and finger prints are to be regarded as tainted votes and they should be quantified with the voters obtained by means of corrupt practice by applying the principle laid down in Nagaraj's case (supra), wherein it has been held that the insistent requirement of Section 101 of the R.P. Act are that; firstly the returned candidate must have obtained votes by the operation of corrupt practices, secondly such tainted votes must be quantified with judicial assurance and the 3rd, after deduction of such void votes the petitioner or other candidate must be sworn to have secured a majority of the valid votes.....the decisive facto is the satisfactory proof of the number of votes, if any attracted by the appellant into his ballot box by the corrupt means. In the present case, the figure of tainted votes obtained by the returned candidate by means of corrupt practice has been determined in the calculation shown in the foregoing paragraphs. With the said calculation there is no doubt that the petitioner would have received more votes than the returned candidate and he would have been declared elected inasmuch as there are only two candidates; the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, in the fray and there being no 3rd candidate, the petitioner should be declared elected. In this regard I can appropriately cite the case of Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda Anr. reported in AIR 1969 SC 604 . The said judgment was delivered in a review petition. The review petitioner was declared elected to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Yadgiri Constituency at the poll held in February, 1967. In this regard I can appropriately cite the case of Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda Anr. reported in AIR 1969 SC 604 . The said judgment was delivered in a review petition. The review petitioner was declared elected to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Yadgiri Constituency at the poll held in February, 1967. The respondent defeated candidate filed the election petition with prayer for declaring him as elected. The election petition was rejected and the election petitioner preferred an appeal before the Apex Court which was allowed by order dated 19.7.1968 providing: the appeal is therefore allowed. The election of the first respondent is declared void. In this view of the matter, the votes cast in favour of the first respondent be treated as thrown away. As there was no other contesting candidate, we declare the appellant (election petitioner) elected to the seat from the Yadagiri Constituency". The elected candidate/returned candidate Vishwanatha Reddy filed the review petition which was dismissed. The views and the law as found expressed in paragraph 13 of the aforesaid judgment and order, in my considered view, squarely apply to the present case and as such for better appreciation thereof, the same is quoted hereunder: 13. The view that we are taking is consistent with the implication of CI(b) of Section 101. When in an election petition which complies with Section 84 of the Act it is found at the hearing that some votes were obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the Court is bound to declare the petitioner or another candidate elected if, but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice, such candidate would have obtained a majority of votes. In cases falling under Clause (b) of Section 101 the Act requires merely proof of corrupt practice, and obtaining votes by corrupt practice: it does not require proof that the voters whose votes are secured by corrupt practice had notice of the corrupt practice. If for the application of the rule contained in clause (b) notice to the voters is not a condition precedent, we see no reason why it should be insisted upon in all cases under Clause (a). If for the application of the rule contained in clause (b) notice to the voters is not a condition precedent, we see no reason why it should be insisted upon in all cases under Clause (a). The votes obtained by corrupt practice by the returned candidate, proved to be guilty of corrupt practice, are expressly excluded in the computation of total votes for ascertaining whether a majority of votes had been obtained by the defeated candidate and no fresh poll is necessary. The same rule should, in our judgment, apply when at an election there are only two candidates and the returned candidate is found to be under a statutory disqualification existing at the date of the filing of the nomination paper. 92. If the aforesaid law is applied, all the tainted votes (corresponding to votes cast by persons whose signatures and finger prints appearing on Form 17-A are questioned as per opinion of the C.Ws. 2 and 3), received by the respondent No. 1 by means of corrupt practice, are liable to be excluded in the computation of total votes and the respondent No. 1 would be rendered second highest vote recipient and his election is liable to be set aside and in his place the election petitioner must be declared elected to No. 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. It is hereby declared that the election of respondent No. 1 to the No. 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency, Arunachal Pradesh is void. 93. It is further declared that the petitioner has been duly elected to 20- Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency in the election held on 13.10.2009. 94. Let an authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to the Election Commission of India, New Delhi and the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Itanagar in accordance with law under Section 103 of the R.P. Act, 1951. Election petition is allowed on contest with costs.