# PUNIT RAI v. DINESH CHAUDHARY - **Citation:** [2003] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 743 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2003-08-19 - **Bench:** V.N. Khare, Brijesh Kumar, S.B. Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/punit-rai-v-dinesh-chaudhary-19345 - **Pages:** 23 ## Headnote B Election Laws: State Assembly Election-Reserved Constituency-Returned candidate- C Challenged on the ground that the returned candidate not belonging to Scheduled Caste-Dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Returning Officer entertaining grave doubt about the caste of the respondent and initiated criminal proceedings against him but accepted the nomination paper-Such acceptance was improper-Facts regarding second marriage of his father with his mother, a Scheduled Caste woman, was within his special D knowledge yet he failed to produce his parents as his witnesses-It is not appropriate to act upon statement of other witnesses-Adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent for withholding the best evidence available to determine his caste-Election of the respondent set asideElection Commission to hold election afresh-Evidence Act, 1872-Section E 114(g)--Constitution of lndia-Artic/es 341 and 342. Appellant, respondent and others contested Assembly Election from a reserved constituency in the State of Bihar. Respondent was declared elected. Appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. Earlier, the Returning Officer had F entertained doubts as to the caste of the respondent and initiated a criminal proceeding against him; he, however, accepted the nomination paper. High Court dismissed the election petition holding that the petitioner was not having any special knowledge as to the caste of the respondent as he was not from the family of the respondent, and that he could not produce any member of the G family of the respondent for examination before the Court to prove that the respondent did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Per Brijesh Kumar, J. (for himself and CJI): H 743 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 1.1. There w~mld obviously be no occasion for the election petitioner to examine the father of the respondent in support of his case while challenging the election of his son. A person borne in a Kurmi family would normally be taken to be Kurmi by caste. But it is only in special circumstances, as may have been provided under a Circular of the Government of Bihar, that the caste B of the mother would be taken as the caste of the children, if she happens to be a Scheduled Caste, married to a non-Scheduled Caste. There is no denial of the fact that the father of the respondent as well as his wife is Kurmi by caste. The facts that he was borne from a woman, a scheduled caste, stated to be second wife of his father, of which special knowledge was with the respondent, he alone had to prove thoseJacts by adducing the best evidence on the point of C his being a Pasi by caste, a Scheduled Caste. (750-F, G, H; 751-AI 1.2. It is clear that the respondent well understood the relevance arid weight of the evidence of his parents who were cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses but they have obviously been withheld and not produced before D the Court. Respondent has not indicated any reason for their non-production. At the same time the Court was led by the case of the respondent that his father did not take care of his sons after their birth and had left them. The High Court lost sight of the fact that despite such an averment made in the written statement father of the respondent has been cited as witness. Further, so far as mother is concerned, she was with the respondent and there is no E reason of any kind of bad relations between the respondent and his mother. The reason imagined by the Court for non-production of father of the respondent would not apply for his mother. [751-F, G, H; 752-A] 1.3. In the instant case, the onus of proof that the respondent was Pasi by caste due to alleged second marriage of his father with his mother in some F other place was wholly within the special knowledge of the respondent. The respondent was supposed to prove the facts within his special knowl ## Text _Characters 0–39,822 of 56,374. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39822 for what follows._ PUNIT RAI A v. DINESH CHAUDHARY AUGUST 19, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ., BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Election Laws: State Assembly Election-Reserved Constituency-Returned candidate- C Challenged on the ground that the returned candidate not belonging to Scheduled Caste-Dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Returning Officer entertaining grave doubt about the caste of the respondent and initiated criminal proceedings against him but accepted the nomination paper-Such acceptance was improper-Facts regarding second marriage of his father with his mother, a Scheduled Caste woman, was within his special D knowledge yet he failed to produce his parents as his witnesses-It is not appropriate to act upon statement of other witnesses-Adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent for withholding the best evidence available to determine his caste-Election of the respondent set asideElection Commission to hold election afresh-Evidence Act, 1872-Section E 114(g)--Constitution of lndia-Artic/es 341 and 342. Appellant, respondent and others contested Assembly Election from a reserved constituency in the State of Bihar. Respondent was declared elected. Appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. Earlier, the Returning Officer had F entertained doubts as to the caste of the respondent and initiated a criminal proceeding against him; he, however, accepted the nomination paper. High Court dismissed the election petition holding that the petitioner was not having any special knowledge as to the caste of the respondent as he was not from the family of the respondent, and that he could not produce any member of the G family of the respondent for examination before the Court to prove that the respondent did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Per Brijesh Kumar, J. (for himself and CJI): H 743 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 1.1. There w~mld obviously be no occasion for the election petitioner to examine the father of the respondent in support of his case while challenging the election of his son. A person borne in a Kurmi family would normally be taken to be Kurmi by caste. But it is only in special circumstances, as may have been provided under a Circular of the Government of Bihar, that the caste B of the mother would be taken as the caste of the children, if she happens to be a Scheduled Caste, married to a non-Scheduled Caste. There is no denial of the fact that the father of the respondent as well as his wife is Kurmi by caste. The facts that he was borne from a woman, a scheduled caste, stated to be second wife of his father, of which special knowledge was with the respondent, he alone had to prove thoseJacts by adducing the best evidence on the point of C his being a Pasi by caste, a Scheduled Caste. (750-F, G, H; 751-AI 1.2. It is clear that the respondent well understood the relevance arid weight of the evidence of his parents who were cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses but they have obviously been withheld and not produced before D the Court. Respondent has not indicated any reason for their non-production. At the same time the Court was led by the case of the respondent that his father did not take care of his sons after their birth and had left them. The High Court lost sight of the fact that despite such an averment made in the written statement father of the respondent has been cited as witness. Further, so far as mother is concerned, she was with the respondent and there is no E reason of any kind of bad relations between the respondent and his mother. The reason imagined by the Court for non-production of father of the respondent would not apply for his mother. [751-F, G, H; 752-A] 1.3. In the instant case, the onus of proof that the respondent was Pasi by caste due to alleged second marriage of his father with his mother in some F other place was wholly within the special knowledge of the respondent. The respondent was supposed to prove the facts within his special knowledge by adducing best evidence, which he failed to do. In these circumstances, the High Court erred in observing that the appellant should have examined t1'.e father of the.respondent. The best evidence, as also according to the High Court, to G prove the case of the respondent was, to produce his parents but they have been withheld after being cited as witnesses for the respondent. These facts clearly make out a case for drawing an adverse inference that in case they had been produced they would not have supported the case of the respondent. [753-G; 754-C, GI H Gopal Krishanji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors., AIR'c1968) SC 1413; Virendra Kumar Sak!echa v. Jagjiwan and Ors., AIR (1974) SC - PUNIT RAI v. DINESH CHAUDHARY 745 1957 and Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota, AIR (1964) A SC 40, relied on. Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, AIR (1961) SC 1316; T.S. Murugesam Pillai v. MD. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi and Ors., AIR (1917) PC 6; and Thiru John and Anr. v. The Returning Officer ar.d Ors., I 1977) 3 sec page 540, referred to. B Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder'Singh Jassi, (1999) 9 SCC page 386, distinguished. 1.4. The appellant had discharged his burden by proving the fact that the father of respondent No.1 is a Kurmi by caste married to a woman, also C Kurmi by caste. The natural inference in such circumstances would be that the respondent would, in normal course of events, be a Kurmi by caste. If there is anything contrary to the normal course of events, viz. another marriage of father of respondent No. I in some other village with a woman who never came to live with him in his village nor he ever lived there. Such facts in the special D knowledge of the respondent have to be proved by him alone. (755-D, E) Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra and Ors., AIR (1959) SC 914, referred to. 1.5. Undoubtedly, the evidence of brother of the respondent's mother E would be relevant for proving her relationship with the father of the respondent but his evidence would not be of any help, in view of the adverse inference drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act due to withholding of the best evidence available on the point. When the persons concerned are not coming forward to the Court to depose about the alleged relationship and an adverse inference has been drawn that if they had come to the Court to depose, F their evidence would have gone against the respondent, in such circumstances, there is no occasion to act upon statement of such witness. (756-A, B, CJ Ba/wan Singh v. lakshmi Narain and Ors., AIR (1960) SC 770, referred to. Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez and Ors., AIR (1969) SC 1201 and Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh, [2002) 1 SCC 160, distinguished. 2.1. No prudent person would accept such a nomination paper in respect G of which there is an information that caste certificate entitling him to be a H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A candidate from a. reserved constituency, is suspected to be forged and fabricated supported by a report subsequently by none else but a responsible officer, the District Welfare Officer. After taking a decision to prosecute a person on criminal charge of filing fabricated caste certificate it goes against the normal human ·conduct of a prudent person who still accept such a nomination paper. The nomination if rejected, the respondent could further B agitate the matter by filing an election petition. This question would not depend upon the fact as to ultimately the case of which of the party would he found to be correct or false. Thus, the nomination paper of the returned candidate (Respondent) was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. It ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer in the background of the facts C and circumstances. Hence, judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The election of the Respondent is set aside. The Election Commission is directed to hold election afresh. (758-8-F) Per Sinha, J. (Supplementing): D 1.1. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent has ever been treated to be a member of Scheduled Caste. In fact evidence suggests that he has not been so treated. He as well as his brothers and ot~er members of his family are married to persons belonging to his own caste, i.e., 'Kurmi'. There was no attempt on the part of the respondent to bring on record any material to the effect that he was treated as a member of "Pasi" community, E a Scheduled Caste. Furthermore, no evidence has been brought on record to show that the family of the respondent had adopted and had been practicing the customary traits and tenets of'Pasi" community. (761-G-H; 762-A, Bl F B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, (1965( 1SCR316, followed. Principal, Guntur Medic(ll College v. V. Y. Mohan Rao, (1976) 3 SCR 1046 and Kai/ash Sankar v. Smt. Maya Devi, AIR (1984) SC 600, relied on. 1.2. Determination of caste of a person is governed by the customary laws. A person under the customary Hindu law would be inheriting his caste G from his father. It is not denied or disputed that the respondent's father belonged to a 'Kurmi' caste. He was, therefore, not a member of Scheduled Caste. The caste of the father, therefore, will be the determinative factor in absence of any law. [763-H; 764-A) Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal Development and H Ors., (1994( 6 SCC 241 and Director a/Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri, [1995) PUNIT RAI v. DINESH CHAUDHARY [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 747 4 sec 32, relied on. A 1.3. A person can take the benefit of reservation as a reserved category candidate if he satisfies the test laid down by the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the guidelines issued by the Election Commission, if any. The State has no jurisdiction to reserve a constituency for a person who does not belong to the reserved category for B whose benefit it was constituted except by way of legislation. If a customary law is to be given a go-bye for any purpose whatsoever and particularly for the purpose of enlarging the scope of a notification issued by the President of India under Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the same must be done in terms ofa statute and not otherwise.1764-F, G, H; 765-A) C Dwarka Nath Tewari and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1959) SC 249, referred to. 1.4. The High Court erred in so far as it failed to consider that for the purpose of determination of caste, the Respondent could not have relied upon D the Circular dated 3.3.1978 issued by the State in the absence of any law. In any event, it has not been shown by the Respondent as to what enquiry was made for determination of his caste. [765-C, DJ CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 659 of 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2002 of the Patna High Court in E.P.No. 2 of2000. Prabha Shanker Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Vishnu Sharma, Amitesh C. Mishra and S. Chandra Shekhar for the Appellant. L. Nageshwar Rao, S.B. Sanyal, Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Arup Banerjee, Arup Kumar Chongar and K.C. Sudarsan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E F BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and G order passed by the Patna High Court, dismissing the Election Petition No. 2 of2000 preferred by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent herein - Dinesh Chaudhary, the returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly. The dispute relates to the election held in 204 Fatua Reserved Assembly Constituency (S.C.) in the State of Bihar, in the year 2000. The appellant, H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A amongst others in the fray, was a candidate for the election as a nominee of Janata Dal (U). He belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondent, Dinesh Chaudhary was a nominee of Janata Dal (R) claiming to be belonging to Pasi community which is one of the Scheduled Caste communities. It appears that some objections were raised regarding the nomination of the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste B community; rather he is Kurmi by caste which falls in the category of Other Backward Cla5ses. The caste certificate furnished by the respondent before the Returning Officer was also under cloud, in respect whereof, the Returning Officer entertained grave suspicion as a result of which she lodged an FIR on the basis of which a Criminal Case has also been registered against the C respondent. He was also arrested in connection with that case. However, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of the respondent for contesting the aforesaid election. The election was held on 17.2.2000 and the result was ultimately declared on. 26.2.2000 declaring respondent Dinesh Chaudhary as elected, having polled 46850 votes whereas the petitioner appellant had secured 39897 votes which was next to the highest polled in D favour of the respondent. As indicated above, the petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, amongst other, on the ground that he was not entitled to contest from a reserved constituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate E since he is Kurmi by caste. In this light, the case of the petitioner was that the nomination. paper of the respondent was wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer. More particularly, since the Returning Officer herself had initiated criminal proceedings by filing an FIR relating to the certificate furnished by the respondent, being a fabricated document. The definite case of the appellant is that the respondent is a resident of Surangpur of Jehanabad F Assembly Constituency and he is the son of Bhagwan Singh who married to Jago Devi and both are Kurmi by Caste. Evidence has been led to indicate that Dinesh Chaudhary and his brother are also married in Kurmi families. The voters list of Jehanabad Assembly Constituency was also summoned indicating the respondent as son of Bhagwan Singh and Jago Devi is shown to be G Bhagwan Singh 's wife. Dinesh Chaudhary and his brother have been shown to be two sons of Bhagwan Singh. The case of the respondent as pleaded in the written statement is that his father Bhagwan Singh, a Kurmi by caste, had married one Deo Kumari Devi at village Adai, who is Pasi by caste. The respondent and his brother H are borne to the said Smt. Deo Kumari Devi. The two brothers remained ·in PUNIT RAI v. DINESH CHAUDHARY [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 749 village Adai with their mother at the house of their maternal uncle until they A attained majority, whereafter they, along with their mother, shifted to Patna. Bhagwan Singh had been visiting their mother occasionally at village Adai. According to the respondent, in view of certain circulars issued by the State Government, in case of an inter-caste marriage where the wife is a Scheduled Caste, the children borne out of the wedlock would be treated as Scheduled Caste. The voters list of village Adai also seems to have been filed indicating B the respondent as son of Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi. So far the question of submission of caste certificate before the Returning Officer is concerned, the respondent's case is that the same was brought to him by someone who happened to be a man of the petitioner appellant. As such he has been implicated in the case of furnishing a false certificate. The original C certificate issued by the Collector, Gaya has not been challenged. Out of the four issues framed, the relevant issues with which we are concerned in the present appeal are, issues No.3 and 4 as quoted below : "(iii) Whether the nomination paper of the sole Respondent has been D improperly and illegally accepted as per the allegations made in the election petition? (iv) What relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?" The main controversy under issue no.3 is undoubtedly on the question E as to whether the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary is Kurmi by caste or is a Pasi having allegedly borne of Deo Kumari Devi belonging to S.C. community. Both parties understood the issue no.3 in the same manner and have led oral and documentary evidence on the point. The oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that Bhagwan Singh, the father of Dinesh Chaudhary is Kurmi by caste and his wife Jago Devi is also a Kurmi. Some F residents of village Adai have also been examined by the petitiorier to state that there was no person by the name of Dinesh Chaudhary in that village and they denied the fact that the respondent was borne of Deo Kumari Devi in village Adai. The respondent also examined several witnesses to support his case. One Ram Eqbal Singh has been examined as DWI, aged about 70 G years, belonging to village Adai, saying that Bhagwan Singh of village Bhavanichak had some sort of affinity with Deo Kumari Devi and about 50 years ago they married, out of their marriage Dinesh Chaudhary and Naresh Chaudhary were borne, and after the birth of the second son Bhagwan Singh had severed all relationship with Deo Kumari Devi and thereafter never visited the village Adai. Amongst other witnesses, some relations of Deo Kumari H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A ' Devi have been examined including her brother who supported the case of the respondent. The High Court, while dealing with the evidence, observes that the evidence which has been led by the petitioner is more of a circumstantial nature. For example, the fact that undisputedly father of Dinesh Chaudhary B is Kurmi by caste married to Jago Devi who is also Kurmi. Dinesh Chaudhary and his brother are also married in Kurmi families. It is also noted in the judgment that the whole story of marriage of Bhagwan Singh with Deo Kumari Devi, a Pasi lady, had not_~en disclosed at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper to explain as to on what basis Dinesh Chaudhary claimed C to be a Pasi. The caste certificate was issued even though his father is a Kunni married to a Kurmi lady namely, Jago Devi. At this stage it would be appropriate to quote some of the findings recorded by the High Court. After · observing that the petitioner appellant could not produce any direct evidence about the caste of the respondent Dinesh Chaudhary, it is found: D E "As the el~ction petitioner is not from the family of the respondent or his relation, so it cannot be possible to have any special knowledge regarding the caste, but he could not produce any person from the family of Bhagwan Singh or Bhagwan Singh himself who can prove that Dinesh Chaudhary, the Respodnent, is a Kurmi by caste through a Kunni mother i.e. Jago Devi". (emphasis supplied) To us the above observations seems to be unsustainable. There would obviously be no occasion for the election petitioner to examine Bhagwan Singh in support of his case while challenging the election of none else but F the son of Bhagwan Singh himself. A person borne in a Kurmi family, which details have been provided, would normally be taken to be Kurmi by caste. But it is only in special circumstances, as may have been provided under a circular of the Government of Bihar, that the caste of the mother would be taken as the caste of the children, if she happens to be a Scheduled Caste, G married to a non-Scheduled Caste. There is no denial of the fact that Bhagwan Singh is a Kurmi as well as Jago Devi, wife of Bhagwan Singh. The story as put forward by the respondent about his caste is something which would be ' in the special knowledge of the respondent and Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi. There was no occasion for the appellant to examine Bhagwan Singh or any member of his family once it was given out by the appellant that H Bhagwan Singh and his wife Jago Devi both are Kurmi by caste. The facts \ \ \ ' PUNIT RAJ v. DINESH CHAUDHARY [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 751 of which special knowledge is with the respondent, he alone had to prove A those facts by adducing the best evidence on the point of his being a Pasi by caste. It may, however, be pertinent again to quote one of the observations of the High Court, which is as follows : "The position of burden of proof as would be on principle of law that any fact which has been asserted by a person should be proved by B him and if the same has been proved prima facie then only the burden is shifted to the adverse party to rebut the same. But such sort of shifting of burden and placing of variations remain only an academic one when both parties adduce evidence in support of their contention on the vexed issue." In the light of the above observations it is only to be decided on the basis c of the evidence adduced by both the parties as to who has been able to prove one's case. It is true that the respondent has examined some witnesses belonging to village Adai including his maternal uncle to support his case but neither Bhagwan Singh nor Deo Kumari Devi, both of whom are alive have D been examined to prove the fact, in respect of which they alone would be the best witnesses to depose. In this connection, the High Court has also observed thus : "Very peculiarly both the mother and father of Dinesh Chaudhary are alive but none of them have been cited as witness by either of the E parties. ln the list of witnesses Deo Kumari Devi and Bhagwan Singh were cited as witnesses for the Respondent but for the reasons best known to them they have not been produced as witnesses". It is clear that the respondent well understood the relevance and weight of the evidence of Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi who were cited as F witnesses in list of his witnesses but they have obviously been withheld and not produced before the Court. Respondent has not indicated any reason for their non-production. At the same time the court is Jed by the case of the respondent as asserted in the written statement that his father did not care of his sons after their birth and had left them. The court observes that this G may be a cogent reason for not adducing the evidence of Bhagwan Singh from the side of respondent. Surprisingly, the court iooses sight of the fact th\.despite such an averrnent made in the written statement Bhagwan Singh has bien cited as witness of the respondent. Further so far mother is concerned, she is with the respondent and there is no reason of any kind of bad relations I be~een the respondent and his mother Deo Kumari Devi, to not to produce H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A her. The reason imagined by the Court for non-production of Bhagwan Singh will not apply to Deo Kumari Devi. It is observed by the High Court itself as follows: B "But no explanation has been given from the side of the Respondent as to why their mother Deo Kumari Devi could not be examined in the case as it has been vehemently argued from the side of the election petitioner that withholding Deo Kumari Devi from being a witness brings an adverse inference against the Respondent as contemplated under Section 114 of the Evidence Act." It may further be worthwhile to refer to some of the other observations made C by the High Court, e.g. that Bhagwan Singh and his wife Jago Devi both are Kurmis but it would not mean that respond~nt was borne of Jago Devi, which fact it is observed, is not anywhere mentioned specifically in the election petition. It is a queer observation and the approach adopted by the High Court. There was no occasion to state further in the election petition that the D respondent was borne of Jago Devi out of her wedlock with Bhagwan Singh who are husband and wife and Kurmis by caste unless it is proved by the other side by any evidence that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged marriage of Bhagwan Singh with a Pasi lady namely, Deo Kumari Devi in another village namely, Adai, where Bhagwan Singh never resided nor Deo E Kumari Devi was ever brought to reside with Bhagwan Singh in his village. ' However, on the basis of untenable observation, as indicated above, the High ,. f ' r Court found : tF "So the prima facie fact regarding the case of the respondent could not be proved from the side of the election petitioner. But definitely a doubt could be created regarding the caste of the respondent as already stated above." Strangely enough we again find yet another fragile and strange observation as follows : "The election petitioner himself in his evidence had not denied G categorically that the respondent had not been born to the womb of Deo Kumari Devi. Only vague statement has been made that both father and mother of Dinesh Chaudhary were Kurmi by the castef The conclu~ion drawn by the High Court that respondent w/.s a competent person to contest from reserved constituency is accompanied with H the following observation : ~ PUNIT RAI v. DIN ESH CHAUDHARY [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 753 "Definitely, if a person is born of a Kurmi father or in a Kurm i family A then the presumption goes that the child is Kurmi by caste. But here the respondent could make out a special case that, although, he has been born of a Kurmi father but mother being a Pasi, he is a Scheduled Caste and as such, a competent person to contest from the Reserved Constituency." It is again in that context observed : "It is true that the controversy can be well thrashed out if Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi have been examined by either of the parties." ~ We have already observed that there was no occasion for the petitioner appellant to examine either of them. But there is no such cogent reason for the respondent not to examine them. It is again observed : "Then question comes of Deo Kumari Devi. She had not been produced B c . by the respondent and she is in custody of the respondent himself D as per his statement during the course of evidence. No reasons have been stated as to why she has not been produced. This may cast some adverse inference against the respondent. But such adverse inference alone is not sufficient enough to hold that the respondent is not a Pasi by caste." E It is then observed that the petitioner is not proved his case to the hilt , though a suspicion or doubt has been cast. We may consider a few cases on the point of drawing adverse inference in the event of withholding of a witness. In AIR 1968 SC 1413 at 1416, Gopal Krishanji Ketkar v. Mohomed Haji Latif and Ors., it has been held that a F party who is in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholds such evidence an adverse inference under Section l 14(g) of the Evidence Act ought to be drawn against such a party notwithstanding that the ohus of proof may not lie on him. It is observed that a party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that G he was not called upon to produce such evidence. ''\ , In the instant case however, the onus of proof that the respondent was Pasi, by Caste due to alleged marriage of Bhagwan Singh with Deo Kumari Devi in some other place was wholly within the special knowledge of the re~JJondent. H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A In AIR (1974).SC 1957, Virendra Kumar. Saklecha v. Jagjiwan and Ors., the allegation of threatening voters with divine displeasu:e in speech delivered in some meetings was not accepted and an adverse inference wa3 drawn due to non-production of material witness and the notes made by him at the meeting. In yet another reported in case AIR ( 1964) SC 40, Lachman Utamchand B Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota, a matrimonial dispute in which the question as to whether or not the wife had left the husband's place with the consent of husband's parents , non-production of parents of the husband led to adverse inference drawn against the husband. In the case in hand the respondent was supposed to prove the facts C within his special knowledge by adducing best evidence namely, Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi, which he failed to do. In these circumstances, the High Court erred in observing that the appellant should have examined Bhagwan Singh. The case of the parties is clear from their pleadings and the evidence D adduced by them as indicated above. The petitioner challenged the status of respondent Dinesh Chaudhary as a Scheduled Caste person belonging to the S.C. community: Precisely what was indicated in support of that case is that father of Dinesh Chaudhary and Naresh Chaduhary is Bhagwan Singh who is Kurmi by ca.ste married to Jago Devi, also a Kurmi lady. The High Court ~· has also observed that a person borne in a Kurmi family normally would be E presumed that he is Kurmi by caste. In this background the initial burden of the petitioner would stand discharged and it would shift upon the respondent • to prove his case which, in normal course of things, would be and is within ~ his special knowledge. A case which has been set up by the respondent through his witnesses as well that his father had taken a fancy for Deo Kumari F Devi, a resident of village Adai, who is Pasi by caste and married her who gave birth to two children including the respondent, would normally be not in the knowledge of people in general particularly when according to the case of the respondent himself Jago Devi lived in another village and she was never brought from there by Bhagwan Singh. More so, when Bhagwan Singh, a Kurmi by caste,· is living with his wife Jago Devi, also a Kurmi, in their G village Jahanabad. The best evidence, as also according to the High Court to prove the case of the respondent was, to produce Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi but they have been withheld after being cited as witnesses ~, the respondent. These facts clearly make out a case for drawing an adverse inference that in case they had been produced they would not have supported \ H the case of the respondent. AIR (1961) SC 1316 Kundan Lal Rallaram~v. 14 ). t PUNIT RA! v. DINESH CHAUDHARY [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 755 Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, AIR (1917) PC 6 T.S. Murugesam A Pillai v. MD. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi and Ors., (1977] 3 SCC page 540 Thiru John and Anr. v. The Returning Officer and Ors., may also be referred on the point. On behalf of the"fespondent, the citation of certain decisions has also been furnished but those decisions would be of no help to the respondent. B Reliance has been placed upon (1999] 9 SCC page 386 Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, where it has been held that a party upon whom the burden lies to prove a fact, but fails to discharge his onus, it is not open for him to bank upon the plea of non-examination of witness by the other party. The appellant, it was held, cannot be permitted to derive strength from C the weakness of the case of the other party. We feel that this case would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. On the other hand, the onus to prove facts within the special knowledge of respondent no. l, would lie upon him alone to prove those facts. We have already held that best evidence of the respondent's case that his mother was a Pasi has been withheld. In this connection, we may peruse Section 106 of the Evidence Act D also which reads as under:- "when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving to that effect is upon him.". Apart from ~ the above, the appellant had also discharged his burden by proving the fact that the father of respondent No. l is Bhagwan Singh, a Kurmi by caste married to Jago Devi also a Kurmi by caste. The natural inference in such E circumstances would be that the respondent would, in normal course of :. events, be a Kurmi by caste. If there is anything contrary to the normal course of events, as pleaded in this case of another marriage of Bhagwan Singh in some other village namely Adai with Deo Kumari Devi who never came to live with Bhagwan Singh in his village nor Bhagwan Singh ever lived there. Such facts in the special knowledge of the respondent have to be proved by him F alone. The respondent was under duty to prove his case both ways namely, in view of the special knowledge of facts pleaded and again in view of the fact that the appellant had discharged his initial burden of showing that the respondent was Kurmi by caste being son of Bhagwan Singh, Kurmi married to Jago Devi also Kurmi. The other decision which has been referred to on behalf of the respondent is reported in AIR (1959) SC 914 Dolgobinda G ~f)tha v. Nimai Charan Misra and Ors., It is in connection with the fact that the evidence of the brother of Dev Kumari Devi that Bhagwan Singh had married her, was relevant for the purposes of relationship of one person to anjther since brother of Deo Kumari Devi, is a person who is a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge of the particular H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A relationship. The decision is in reference to Section 50 of the Evidence Act. It may be observed that the evidence of persons who belong to village Adai including the brother of Deo Kumari Devi have been examined by the respondent to establish the allegation of marriage between Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi. Undoubtedly, the evidence of brother of Deo Kumari Devi would be relevant for the relationship between Bhagwan Singh and Deo B Kumari Devi but his evidence would not be of any help, in view of the adverse inference drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act due to withholding of the best evidence available on the point.· When the persons concerned are not coming forward to the court to depose about the alleged relationship and an adverse inference has been drawn that if they had come C to the Court to depose, their evidence would have gone against the respondent, in such circumstances, there is no occasion to act upon the statement of DW (5), the brother of Deo Kumari Devi or other witnesses. Reliance has also been placed on two decisions reported in AIR (1969) SC 1201 Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Femadez and Ors., and [2002] D 1 SCC page 160 Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh on the proposition that full particulars and all the material facts must be pleaded in the Election Petition. It is not understandable as to how these cases would help the f respondent. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent is son of Bhagwan I r. Singh who is Kurmi by caste and wife of Bhagwan Singh is Jago Devi also E a lady Kurmi by caste. It is also stated that the respondent and his brother are married with Kurmi ladies. These are the material facts relating to the plea · raised by the appellant that the respondent is not a Scheduled Caste. We-: don't think if the respondent means to say that the petitioner should have stated in the petition that the respondent is not born of Deo Kumari Devi said to be married to Bhagwan Singh in Village Adai. If at all these facts would F be in the special knowledge of respondent, Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi hence not required to be pleaded in the Election Petition. It is not possible as well. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court reported in AIR (1960) SC 770 Ba/wan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain and Ors., This case also relates to Election matter and it was held that facts which are in the special knowledge of the other party could not be pleaded G by the Election Petitioner. It was found that particulars of the arrangement of hiring or procuring a vehicle would never be in the knowledge of the petiti