Introduction 

• The Supreme Court in the present case criticized the kind of evidence produced by the appellant i.e. Hearsay evidence. 

Facts   

• A notice was published inviting nominations from eligible candidates to contest the Assam State Legislative Assembly Election. 
• The appellant filed his nomination papers to contest the Assam State Legislative Assembly Elections. 
• The respondent No. 2 herein filed his nomination papers as the candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party for the said constituency. 
• The nominations were declared valid by the Returning Officer. 
• On the date of polling the notified station was not set up in the notified school, and instead, the polling was conducted in another school. 
• Due to which there was confusion and chaos amongst the voters and many of them went away without casting their votes. 
• Later after the complaint lodged by the appellant and the polling shifted to the notified polling station. 
• When the votes were counted, the margin between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 was 175 votes and the Respondent No. 2 won the election. 
• The appellant lodged a complaint before the Returning Officer demanding repoll at the polling station. 
• Commissioner and District Election Officer held that the problem about the functioning of Polling Station notified was solved immediately on the day of the polling under the guidance of the Election Observer in the presence of the Zonal Officer, Sector Officer of the Constituency Magistrate and Polling Agents. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the appellate filed the appeal before the Gauhati High Court, which got dismissed. 
• Then the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether polling at the non-notified place and curtailing of time of voting had materially affected the result of the election? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that in India all the voters do not always go to the polls and that the casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of factors and it is not possible for anyone to predicate how many or which proportion of votes will go to one or the other of the candidate. 
• The Supreme court in the present case criticized the kind of evidence produced by the appellant i.e. Hearsay evidence. 
  • The phrase "hearsay evidence" is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague.  
  • It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.  
  • That this kind of evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. 
• The Supreme court noted that the contention made by the appellate that 200 or 300 people returned because of the confusion created due to change in polling place was vague and exaggerated and the witnesses produced by him gave hearsay evidence and not the direct evidence. 
• The Supreme Court also noted that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 and 56 of the Act and Rule 15 of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 but no inferences can be drawn that the non-compliance affected the result of election in anyway. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the present appeal that the appellant failed to prove his contentions beyond reasonable doubt and the evidences produced by him were not admissible.