to an opposition party, supported by his political co-worker Nanku Yadav (P.W. 28) – a witness who, in his transparent anxiety to appear truthful went so far as to make the absurd assertion that he had not told anyone, before he appeared in the witness box that he had attended the Shaheed Mela on 7-11971 and who could not remember either the date of his marriage or the dates of births of his children but asserted that he had noted 7-1-1971 without even having ever talked on any previous occasion to anyone about this date if he is to be believed–and, by Shri R.K. Dixit (P.W. 31), a joint editor of a newspaper who claimed to be present on the occasion, and who, while reporting other facts and reasons in his newspaper for believing that the original respondent will stand from the Rae Bareily constituency, had not mentioned what he claimed, in the witness box, to have heard Shri Yashpal Kapur himself say at the Mela, Obviously, both these witnesses, if they were not committing perjury did not have good memories on their own admissions. But, the learned Judge had believed them quite unhesitatingly although the meeting at Shaheed Mela, addressed by Shri Yashpal Kapur, had not even been given any prominence in the pleadings by being at least specifically mentioned in the petition. 418. The learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of the original respondent's witness Shri Sarju Prasad (R.W. 12), the Headmaster of a School, who had denied that he ever accompanied Shri Nankau (P.W. 28) to the Shaheed Mela as claimed by Nankau. The ground for holding that Shri Sarju Prasad must be deposing falsely appears to me to be very unfair both to Shri Sarju Prasad and Shri Gaya Prasad Shukla, a Congressman, who was suspected, without the slightest foundation in evidence of having induced Shri Sarju Prasad to give perjured evidence simply because Shri Gaya Prasad, who did not even appear as a witness, was a member of the Congress (R) party and was once connected with the School in which Shri Sarju Prasad served. The learned Judge said: “It is quite likely that once Nankau had conceded in cross-examination that Sarju Prasad had accompanied him to the Shaheed Mela, pressure was brought to bear on Sarju Prasad (R.W. 12) by Gaya Prasad Shukla in order to make him appear as a witness in the case and give evidence to contradict the testimony of Nankau. It is true that in his re-examination Sarju Prasad (R.W. 12) admitted that on the date on which he was examined as a witness in the case the school was being run by the Government under the control of the District Basic Education Officer. However, the association that Gaya Prasad Shukla had with the Pathshala in his capacity as Adhyaksha, and consequently with Sarju Prasad, who was a teacher in that Pathshala could not have been wiped off overnight merely because the school was taken over by the Government to be run under its own officers”. 419. The reasons given by the learned Judge for holding that it was “abundantly clear” that Shri Ram Pal (R.W. 13) another witness of Smt. Gandhi was “also not a truthful witness”, were;