19. Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8 & Ex.P/9 are newspaper
cuttings comprising of news items with regard to alleged
distribution of currency notes by the respondent. A serious
objection has been raised as to the evidential value of these
documents, hence, it becomes necessary to examine the legal
position with regard to the evidential value of newspaper
reports. E.P. 03-2014 13
20. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has
cited Quamarul Islam vs. S.K. Kanta &Ors., reported in AIR
1994 SC 1733 and Samant N. Balkrishna vs. Jeorge
Fernadez & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 1201 in support of his
contention that a news item as such has no evidence in the
eyes of law, unless evidence of the reporter, editor or publisher
is brought before the Court who can testify as to how, when,
where and in what manner the material with regard to the
news item was collected and then in what manner it was
edited and modified.
21. In Quamarul Islam (supra), Hon’ble the apex
Court dealing with the issue of proof and evidential value of
newspaper report has held as under:-
" Newspaper reports by themselves are
not evidence of the contents thereof.
Those reports are only hearsay evidence.
These have to be proved and the manner
of proving a newspaper report is well
settled. Since, in this case, neither the
reporter who heard the speech and sent
the report was examined nor even his
reports produced, the production of the
newspaper by the Editor and publisher,
PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving
the contents of the newspaper reports.
Newspaper, is at the best secondary
evidence of its contents and is not
admissible in evidence without proper
proof of the contents under the Indian
Evidence Act."
22. In Samant N. Balkrishna (supra), Hon’ble the
apex Court has observed thus:
"......A news item without any further
proof of what had actually happened
through witnesses is of no value. It is at
best a second-hand secondary evidence. It
is well known that reporters collect
information and pass it on to the editor
who edits the news item and then
publishes it. In this process the truth
might get perverted or garbled. Such
news items cannot be said to prove
themselves although they may be taken
into account with other evidence if the
other evidence is forcible..."
23. It clearly emerges from the aforesaid enunciation of
law that a newspaper report by itself is no evidence of its
contents and that such report is only hearsay evidence. It
further emerges from the aforesaid pronouncements that to
prove the contents of the newspaper reports, the reporter,
editor or publisher who can testify as to how, when, from
where and in what manner the material published in the
newspaper was collected, should be examined .
From the averments made by the petitioner, it is
clear that he is not having any personal knowledge regarding
these allegations. Bharat Solanki – an independent candidate,
who allegedly, complained about the incident to the observer
of the Election Commission, has also not been examined
before the Court nor the complaint said to have been made by
him in this regard has been brought in evidence. Further, the
petitioner has neither adduced in evidence the alleged
newspaper clippings of ‘City Blast’ and ‘Balwas Times’ nor
the reporter, editor or publisher of these newspapers have been
examined in support of the allegation in this behalf. Thus, the
petitioner in terms of his pleadings, as such, has not adduced
any evidence to prove the allegations made in this regard in
para 17(2) of the petition.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ved Prakash Sharma
Eelection Petition No.03/2014
Govind Sirvi
V
Smt. Ranjana Baghel
Dated: 23.01.2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 MP 41
