IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 757 of 2007()
1. SINDHU, W/O.FRANCIS THANKARAJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LILLY SAHAYAR MERY, W/O.SANTHAKUMAR,
... Respondent
2. RENUKA SELVAN, W/O.SELVAN, AGED 37
3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR, THE RETURNING
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :12/02/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
C.R.P.No.757 OF 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~~
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the
Munsiff, Chittur in I.A.No.1491/2007 in E.O.P.2/2005. Learned
counsel for the revision petitioner had argued two points before
me namely that the court below has erred in directing the
signature and thumb impression to be sent to an expert for
comparison and secondly it should not have ordered the
comparison of signature by a private expert. Perused the order
of the learned Munsiff. The dispute is with respect to the factum
of double voting by two persons namely Shourimuthu and Albert
Selvaraj. The court in Para 6 of the order found that these two
person’s name differs in the list of ward number 2 and 3 of
Kozhinjampara Grama Panchayat. It is also held that both these
persons have cast their votes in both the wards. When examined
they categorically asserted that they had only cast their vote in
ward number 3 and they had never cast their vote in ward
number 2. They have also denied their thump impression. The
court also examined the evidence of the polling agent which is to
C.R.P.No.757/2007 2
the effect that the same persons had personally came and voted in
both the wards. The polling officials also had supported that
view. So the crucial point that requires determination is whether
these two persons had cast their votes in both the wards. It has
to be held that in a case of this nature the question whether a
person had cast their votes in two booths is a matter which is
finally to be adjudicated. Before that the court has to satisfy that
the names of the persons differs in two voters list and their
identity is established. The court in this case was prima facie
satisfied about the same. When they asserted that they have not
affixed their signature or thumb impression then naturally in
order to have a scientific evidence that too in an election petition
the court ordered a comparison by expert. I do not find any
mistake committed by the court below in ordering so.
2. So far as the next question regarding the reference to a
private expert, it is argued that it should have been sent to the
governmental machinery. So far as the State of Kerala is
concerned the forensic laboratory is so crowded with large
number of matters which is certain that even after the expiry of
the term of period of office one will not be able to get a report.
Further there is no taboo to appoint a private expert. Whenever
C.R.P.No.757/2007 3
he submits an expert’s report it is not accepted in toto by the
court, but parties are permitted to adduce evidence and only on
satisfaction of the materials available the court relies upon that.
As held by the courts in so many decisions, the expert’s evidence
is only an opinion evidence which means that it also requires
acceptability.
Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
decision rendered by the court below and therefore civil revision
petition is dismissed.
(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)
ps