Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1612 of 2005
PETITIONER:
KISHAN SINGH & ANR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007
BENCH:
C.K. THAKKER & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
C.K. THAKKER, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the two
appellants against an order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gurdaspur on April 30, 2002 in Sessions Case
No. 128 of 1999 and confirmed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on May 4,
2005 in Criminal Appeal No.950-SB of 2002. By
the said order, the Courts below convicted the
appellants herein for offences punishable under
Sections 304B and 315, Indian Penal Code (IPC).
For an offence punishable under Section 304B,
IPC the appellants were ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months, whereas for an
offence punishable under Section 315, IPC, they
were ordered to undergo imprisonment for three
years.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are
that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Tilak Singh and
Sudershana Rani-PW2, got married to Manmohan
Singh (original accused No.1) on February 19,
1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
According to the prosecution, sufficient dowry
was given by the parents of Reeta Kumari at the
time of marriage as per their financial status
and capacity. However, Reeta Kumari,
immediately after marriage, disclosed on her
first visit to parental home after 3-4 days
that the accused were subjecting her to taunts
and harassments for not bringing scooter and
golden bangle (kara) in dowry. The young bride
was told in clear terms that if the demands of
the accused of scooter and golden bangle would
not be met with, she should not come back to
matrimonial home. Even thereafter, during her
visit to parental home at 2-3 occasions, Reeta
Kumari informed her family members that the
accused were repeating their demand of scooter
and golden bangle. She was, however, pacified
by Sudershana Rani and other family members to
return to matrimonial home on an assurance that
scooter and golden bangle would be given when
the complainant\022s husband (Manmohan Singh)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
would come on leave. It may be stated that the
husband of deceased Reeta Kumari was serving in
Indian Army. It is further the version of the
prosecution that about 14 days prior to the
occurrence, PW7-Dharminder Singh, brother of
Reeta Kumari went to village Kahnuwan at the
matrimonial home of deceased Reeta Kumari to
enquire about the welfare of his sister. On
return, he informed his mother Sudershana Rani
that Reeta Kumari was being subjected to mal-
treatment by the accused on account of demand
of dowry and that he had brought Reeta Kumari
with him to parental home. Complainant
Sudershana Rani, thereafter, had a talk with
the accused persons and assured that their
demand of scooter and golden bangle would be
fulfilled after Manmohan Singh would return.
Reeta Kumari was, therefore, again sent back to
matrimonial home along with PW4-Gopal Singh,
cousin of Reeta Kumari. On June 20, 1999, at
about 3.30 p.m., one Mangat Ram, who acted as
mediator for the marriage between Reeta Kumari
and Manmohan Singh, informed parents of Reeta
Kumari that Reeta Kumari died after consuming
some poisonous substance. On hearing the news,
Sudershana Rani-complainant, along with her son
Dharminder Singh and nephew Daulat Singh went
to the house of the accused at village Kahnuwan
where they found dead body of Reeta Kumari
lying in a room. Statement of Sudershana Rani
was recorded at Ex.PB (FIR 111) on the same day
by PW 9 Swinder Singh (Station Inspector) who
met them at the bus stand, Kahnuwan.
3. The prosecution case also disclosed
that at the time of death, Reeta Kumari was
pregnant with a child of about 12 weeks
gestation period in her womb. It was alleged by
the prosecution that death was caused by the
accused and it was a dowry death. Challan was,
therefore, presented against the accused for
offences punishable under Section 304B, 315 and
498A, IPC. Since an offence punishable under
Section 304B, IPC was exclusively triable by a
Court of Session, the trial Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court,
Gurdaspur. Charge was framed against the
accused, the contents thereof were read over
and explained to them. The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The accused denied to have committed
any offence. According to them, they were
falsely implicated by the police. It was
further stated that accused Manmohan Singh and
deceased Reeta Kumari (husband and wife) had
gone to Vaishno Devi and were returning from
the temple on the previous day of the
occurrence. When they reached near Pathankot,
the deceased insisted that they should first
visit her parental village Kahnuwan whereas
husband Manmohan Singh, accused No.1 insisted
that they should go to the matrimonial home
first. That was the reason for consuming
Aluminium Phosphate by the deceased Reeta
Kumari and thus the deceased committed suicide.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
home the guilt of the accused, examined nine
witnesses including important witnesses, PW2-
Sudershana Rani, complainant and mother of
deceased Reeta Kumari; PW4-Gopal Singh, cousin
brother of deceased Reeta Kumari and PW7-
Dharminder Singh, brother of deceased Reeta
Kumari.
6. The charge was framed against five
accused i.e. accused No.1-Manmohan Singh,
husband of the deceased; accused No.2-Janak
Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased, accused
No. 3, Kishan Singh, father-in-law of the
deceased, accused No. 4, Bachni Rani, mother-
in-law of the deceased and accused No.5-Sushma
Rani, sister-in-law of the deceased.
7. The trial Court, after appreciating
the evidence on record and on the basis of
depositions of PW2 Sudarshana Rani-complainant,
PW 4 Gopal Singh and PW 7 Dharminder Singh held
that as far as accused No.5-Sushma Rani was
concerned, she had already married prior to the
marriage of Manmohan Singh and was staying with
her husband and two children at matrimonial
home at village Kaulsher which was at a
distance of 60-70 KMs. from Kahnuwan. She had
been referred to in the FIR as the sister of
accused No. 1, Manmohan Singh. She would not
have been benefited by the demand of dowry of
scooter and golden bangles. The trial Court,
therefore, held that it could not be said that
she was a party to demand of dowry as also in
causing death of deceased Reeta Kumari. She was
accordingly ordered to be acquitted by the
Court.
8. Regarding Manmohan Singh-accused No.1,
husband of Reeta Kumari, the trial Court
observed that he was serving in Indian Army.
He took leave from February 15, 1999 to March
26, 1999. The marriage was performed on
February 19, 1999. After the marriage, he
again joined service. Thereafter he came on
leave from June 14, 1999 to July 9, 1999. In
the circumstances, according to the trial
Court, it could not be said that he was
responsible for committing offences punishable
under Sections 304B and 315, IPC. The Court,
however, held that there was demand of dowry by
accused No.1-Manmohan Singh, husband of Reeta
Kumari as stated by PW 2 Sudarshana Rani, PW 4
Gopal Singh ad PW 7 Dharminder Singh. Accused
No. 1 Manmohan Singh was, therefore, held
liable for an offence punishable under Section
498A, IPC.
9. As to accused No.2-Janak Singh,
brother in law of the deceased, accused No.3-
Kishan Singh and accused No.4-Bachni Rani,
father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased
Reeta Kumari, the Court held that it was proved
beyond reasonable doubt that they had committed
offences punishable under Sections 304B and
315, IPC. As already stated earlier, sentence
was awarded on accused No.3-Kishan Singh and
accused No.4-Bachni Rani, father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased by the trial
Court. So far as accused No.2-Janak Singh was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
concerned, the trial Court held that he was a
juvenile when the offence was committed which
was clear from the perusal of his birth
certificate. The Court, therefore, forwarded
him to the Juvenile Court for passing an
appropriate order of sentence in accordance
with law.
10. Being aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, three accused persons,
viz. accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband,
accused No.3-Kishan Singh- father-in-law and
accused No.4-Bachni Rani-mother-in-law
preferred an appeal before the High Court.
11. The High Court again examined the
evidence on record, heard the arguments of the
parties and considered the reasons recorded and
conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. It
held that as far as accused Nos. 3 and 4,
parents-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari were
concerned, the trial Court was fully justified
in convicting both of them for offences
punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC.
Accordingly, their conviction as well as order
of sentence was maintained.
12. As to accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-
husband, however, the High Court held that from
the evidence, it was not proved that he was
responsible for committing an offence
punishable under Section 498A, IPC. The Court
observed that he was serving in Indian Army and
was occasionally attending matrimonial home
after taking leave. There was no sufficient
evidence of demand of dowry by accused No. 1.
The trial Court, hence, was not right in
convicting him under Section 498A, IPC. He
was, therefore, ordered to be acquitted.
13. The order convicting accused Nos. 3
and 4, father-in-law and mother-in-law of
deceased Reeta Kumari under Sections 304B and
315, IPC recorded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the High Court is challenged in
the present appeal.
14. On September 23, 2005, notice was
issued on Special Leave Petition as also on the
application for bail. On November 28, 2005,
leave was granted and the appellants were
directed to be released on bail on their
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each
to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab. On September 18,
2006, an order was passed by the Court
directing the Registry to post the appeal \021at
an early date\022. The matter thus has been
placed before us.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that both the Courts committed an
error in convicting the appellants for offences
punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC.
According to the learned counsel, there was no
demand of dowry by the accused and it could not
be said that death of deceased Reeta Kumari was
due to harassment because of demand of dowry.
It was also urged that the evidence of PW2-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
Sudershana Rani, PW4-Gopal Singh and PW7-
Dharminder Singh was not reliable and they
ought not to have been believed by Courts
below. According to the counsel, all the three
witnesses were \021interested\022 witnesses being
close relatives of the deceased, PW2-Sudershana
Rani-mother, PW4-Gopal Singh and PW7-Dharminder
Singh-cousin brother and real brother,
respectively. It was also contended that there
were material contradictions in their evidence
as to when so called demand of scooter and
golden bangle was made. According to one
version, such demand was made at the time of
shagun, whereas according to other version, it
was towards the dowry. Witnesses were aware
that shagun and dowry were not one and same.
Thus, the prosecution was not certain as to the
occasion of alleged demand. It was also stated
that from the evidence of Harbhajan Singh-DW1
and Ramesh Shirodkar-DW2, it was proved that
the accused were having scooter as also
motorcycle. If it were so, there was no
occasion to demand scooter which was the case
of the prosecution. On all these grounds, it
was submitted that both the Courts were wrong
in convicting the appellants and appeal
deserves to be allowed.
17. The learned counsel for the State
submitted that the order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the High Court does not call for
interference. According to him, from the
prosecution evidence, it was clearly
established that deceased Reeta Kumari was
maltreated and harassed for dowry. Immediately
after her marriage on February 19, 1999, when
she came to parental home within few days, she
complained that dowry demand was made by her
in-laws and even thereafter, the demand was
repeated. Reeta Kumari was pregnant at the time
of death. Both the Courts were, therefore,
right in convicting the appellants under
Section 304B and 315, IPC.
18. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, in our opinion, no case has been made
out by the appellants so as to interfere with
the decision of the Courts below. Admittedly,
Reeta Kumari married to accused No.1-Manmohan
Singh on February 19, 1999. The case of the
prosecution is very clear that in-laws of Reeta
Kumari started harassing her by making demand
of dowry. She was told that her parents should
give to accused persons scooter and golden
bangle. She was also told by the accused that
she should not return to matrimonial home if
she would not bring scooter and golden bangle.
Both the Courts considered the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding
that prosecution was able to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt as to demand of dowry
by the accused.
19. Section 304B (Dowry death) was
inserted by Act 43 of 1986 with effect from
November 19, 1986. The said section reads thus:
304B. Dowry death
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
(1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury
or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband for, or
in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called
"dowry death", and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.
Explanation- For the purpose of this
sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning. as in section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall
be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
20. In order that this section may apply,
the following ingredients must be satisfied;
(i) the death of a woman must have
been caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have occurred
within seven years of her
marriage;
(iii) the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or by relatives of
her husband;
(iv) cruelty or harassment must be for
or in connection with demand for
dowry;
(v) such cruelty or harassment is
shown to have been meted out to
the woman soon before her death.
21. In the instant case, the prosecution
has examined PW3-Dr.Swinder Kumar. He deposed
that on June 21, 1999, he conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of Reeta Kumari and
found the following injuries;
1. 3 x = cm. abrasion on right side
of the anterior of the middle of
the neck.
2. 2 x 1 cm. abrasion on right side
of the anterior of the middle of
the neck just 1 cm. below injury
No.1
3. 4 x 2 cm. abrasion on left side of
the anterior of the middle of the
head.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
22. He deposed;
\023On dissection of injuries Nos. 1,
2 and 3, sub-coetaneous tissues of the
neck shows extravagation of blood
beneath the injured areas. On further
dissection, fracture of projection in
laryngeal cartilage seen\024.
23. He proceeded to state:
\023The time between injuries and
death was immediate and between death
and postmortem within 24 hours. In our
opinion, based on the report of the
Chemical Examiner, which is Ex.PC, the
cause of death in this case was ante
mortem throttling and consumption of
aluminium phosphide, which is a
pesticide, Ex.PD is the correct copy
of the postmortem report, the original
of which I have brought today in the
Court which is signed by me and Dr.
H.S. Dhillon and Mrs. Raminder Kaler\024.
24. In cross-examination, he stated that
the injuries near the mouth were possible if an
attempt had been made by someone to prevent
taking tablet or trying to take it out.
Similarly, injury on the neck could be possible
in such a struggle.
25. Thus, from the evidence of Dr.Swinder
Kumar-PW3, it was proved that Reeta Kumari died
unnatural death. As already noted earlier,
Reeta Kumari married to Manmohan Singh on
February 19, 1999 and she died on June 20, 1999
i.e. within a period of four months. Thus, the
death was caused \023within seven years of her
marriage\024. From the prosecution evidence, it
was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
deceased Reeta Kumari was subjected to cruelty
and harassment by the accused in connection
with demand of dowry from day of her marriage.
The demand was repeated from time to time and
it resulted in sad and untimely death of a
young bride. But for continuous demand of dowry
by the accused and constant harassment, two
lives would have been saved. We are, therefore,
of the considered opinion that both the Courts
were right in convicting the appellants for the
offences with which they were charged.
26. In our judgment, both the Courts were
right in rejecting defence version that since
the accused possessed scooter as well as
motorcycle, there was no necessity to make
demand of scooter. The High Court observed that
it was a matter of common knowledge that even
if in-laws had several things in the house,
still they demand dowry. Even if we may not go
to that extent, in our opinion, in the present
case, there was sufficient evidence in the form
of sworn testimony of PW2-Sudershana Rani, PW4-
Gopal Singh and PW7-Dharminder Singh that there
was a demand of dowry by accused and deceased
Reeta Kumari had made such complaint
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
immediately after marriage which was repeated
and reiterated. The deceased used to inform
about such demand by the accused to her
parents. It is, therefore, totally irrelevant
whether accused possessed motorcycle or
scooter. Demand of dowry in this case was
clearly proved and conclusively established by
the prosecution.
27. We also find no substance in the
contention of the appellants that there was
material contradiction in the deposition of
prosecution witnesses as to the occasion of
making demand, i.e. as shagun or as dowry. From
the evidence, it is proved that accused persons
insisted for scooter and golden bangle as they
had \021obliged\022 parents of Reeta Kumari by
allowing her to marry to accused No.1-Manmohan
Singh. In our opinion, therefore, both the
Courts were right in coming to the conclusion
that there was demand of dowry by the accused.
28. The trial Court convicted accused
No.1-Manmohan Singh for an offence punishable
under Section 498A, IPC. The High Court,
however, set aside the said conviction
observing that he was not regularly staying
with Reeta Kumari as he was serving in Army and
used to come only for few days by taking leave.
Prosecution witnesses have, no doubt, deposed
that demand of dowry was also made by accused
No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband of Reeta Kumari and
believing the said evidence, the trial Court
convicted him. But the High Court was of the
view that there was no sufficient evidence to
prove demand of dowry by accused No.1-Manmohan
Singh and acquitted him. The said acquittal is
not challenged by the State. That part of the
order thus has become final. The matter,
therefore, rests there.
29. For the foregoing reasons, in our
opinion, both the Courts were wholly right and
fully justified in recording an order of
conviction and in imposing sentence on
appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 4. We see no
infirmity therein and dismiss the appeal and
confirm the order of conviction and sentence.
Since they are on bail, we direct them to
surrender to undergo the remaining period of
sentence.
30. Before parting with the matter, we may
advert to one aspect. The trial Court, while
not accepting the evidence of PW4-Gopal Singh
as to demand of dowry by accused No.1-Manmohan
Singh-husband of Reeta Kumari, had observed
that no such demand could have been made by
him. It was because PW4-Gopal Singh had stated
that accused No.1-Manmohan Singh ill-treated
deceased Reeta Kumari soon after her death. He
further stated that 10/12 days prior to the
incident, accused No.1-Manmohan Singh
reiterated the demand of scooter and golden
bangle. Now, accused No.1-Manmohan Singh was on
leave from February 15, 1999 to March 26, 1999.
Thus, after marriage ceremony on February 19,
1999, accused No.1-Manmohan Singh stayed with
his wife for more than a month before reporting
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
for duty. Thereafter, he again sought leave
from June 14, 1999 to July 9, 1999. According
to the trial Court, he must have reached his
village on or after June 16, 1999 from Goa and
Reeta Kumari died on June 20, 1999. Thus,
according to the trial Court, accused No.1-
Manmohan Singh could not have made demand of
scooter and golden bangle \02310/12 days prior to
the incident\024. The trial Court, therefore, did
not believe that part of the statement of Gopal
Singh.
31. The trial Court, however, proceeded to
state;
\023But falsehood in this part of the
statement of Gopal Singh, regarding
the demand of scooter and golden kara
made by accused Manmohan Singh, just
10/12 days prior to the death of
deceased is utterly glaring. As
already said above the accused
Manmohan Singh had taken leave from
15.2.1999 to 26.3.1999, for marriage
and after that from 14.6.1999 to
9.7.1999. This leave record was
produced by DW2. If accused Manmohan
Singh had taken leave from 14.6.1999,
he must have reached his village from
Goa on or after 16.6.1999. Therefore,
the presence of Manmohan Singh in his
house at village Kahnuwan, just 10/12
days prior to the alleged occurrence
when Gopal Singh made visit does not
crop up at all\024.
32. It is unfortunate that the trial Court
has made a caustic remark that there was
\021falsehood\022 on the part of PW4-Gopal Singh as
to demand of dowry by accused No.1-Manmohan
Singh. A Court of law may not accept a
particular part of the evidence considering the
other facts and circumstances on record. But
that does not necessarily mean that what was
stated by the witness was \021false\022. In fact,
PW4-Gopal Singh was believed by the trial Court
as well as by the High Court. It may be that
the witness had committed some mistake in
giving the period during which dowry demand was
made by accused No.1-Manmohan Singh. If that
part of the evidence is not consistent with the
facts on record, the Court may not accept it.
But only for that reason, the Court should not
make disparaging remarks as has been done by
the Court.
33. While dealing with a matter, the
Presiding Officer of a Court may extend benefit
of doubt to the accused in the light of
omissions, contradictions or discrepancies in
the deposition of prosecution witnesses. He may
also offer comment on the conduct of parties or
witnesses. He may as well make necessary
observations keeping in view their demeanour.
It has been rightly said that the Judges are
flesh and blood mortals with likes and
dislikes, preferences and prejudices and they
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
are also normal human traits.
34. Thomas Reed Powell once said; "Judges
have preferences for social policies as you and
I. They form their judgments after the varying
fashions in which you and I form ours. They
have hands, organs, dimensions, senses,
affections, passions. They are warmed by the
same winter and summer and by the same ideas as
a layman is."
35. Justice John Clarke has also stated;
"I have never known any judges, no difference
how austere of manner, who discharged their
judicial duties in an atmosphere of pure,
unadulterated reason. Alas! we are ’all the
common growth of the Mother Earth’ - even those
of us who wear the long robe." (emphasis
supplied)
36. At the same time, however, it cannot
be overlooked that judicial restraints and
discipline are equally necessary to orderly
administration of justice. One must always keep
in view golden advice given by S.K. Das, J. in
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 :
AIR 1964 SC 703;
\023If there is one principle of
cardinal importance in the
administration of justice, it is this
: the proper freedom and independence
of Judges and Magistrates must be
maintained and they must be allowed to
perform their functions freely and
fearlessly and without undue
interference by anybody, even by this
Court. At the same time it is equally
necessary that in expressing their
opinions Judges and Magistrates must
be guided by considerations of
justice, fair-play and restraint. It
is not infrequent that sweeping
generalizations defeat the very
purpose for which they are made. It
has been judicially recognized that in
the matter of making disparaging
remarks against persons or authorities
whose conduct comes into consideration
before courts of law in cases to be
decided by them, it is relevant to
consider (a) whether the party whose
conduct is in question is before the
court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself; (b)
whether there is evidence on record
bearing on that conduct justifying the
remarks; and (c) whether it is
necessary for the decision of the
case, as an integral part thereof, to
animadvert on that conduct. It has
also been recognized that judicial
pronouncements must be judicial in
nature, and should not normally depart
from sobriety, moderation and
reserve." (emphasis supplied)
37. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal, (1986) 4
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
SCC 566, while disposing the writ petition, the
High Court made certain sweeping observations
attributing mala fides, corruption and
underhand dealings to the State Government.
Holding the disparaging remarks as unjustified,
hypothetical and unwarranted, Bhagwati, C.J.
observed:
\023We may observe in conclusion that
Judges should not use strong and
carping language while criticising the
conduct of parties or their witnesses.
They must act with sobriety,
moderation and restraint. They must
have the humility to recognise that
they are not infallible and any harsh
and disparaging strictures passed by
them against any party may be mistaken
and unjustified and if so, they may do
considerable harm and mischief and
result in injustice. Here, in the
present case, the observations made
and strictures passed by B.M. Lal, J.
were totally unjustified and
unwarranted and they ought not to have
been made\024.
38. We are reminded of the following
observations of Shetty, J. in A.M. Mathur v.
Pramod Kumar, (1990) 2 SCC 533 : JT 1990 (1) SC
545;
\023The Judges Bench is a seat of
power. Not only do judges have power
to make binding decisions, their
decisions legitimate the use of power
by other officials. The Judges have
the absolute and unchallenged control
of the Court domain. But they cannot
misuse their authority by intemperate
comments, undignified banter or
scathing criticism of counsel, parties
or witnesses. We concede that the
Court has the inherent power to act
freely upon its own conviction on any
matter coming before it for
adjudication, but it is a general
principle of the highest importance to
the proper administration of justice
that derogatory remarks ought not to
be made against persons or authorities
whose conduct comes into consideration
unless it is absolutely necessary for
the decision of the case to animadvert
on their conduct\024.
(emphasis supplied)
39. In the case on hand, in our judgment,
there was no occasion for the trial Court to go
to the extent of describing the evidence of
PW4-Gopal Singh to be \021false\022. Even if it is
conceded that in the light of other evidence on
record, the Court was not convinced as to the
demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manmohan
Singh, \02110/12 days prior to the incident\022, the
Court could have acquitted accused No.1 on that
ground. In our considered opinion, however, it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
was certainly not a case of making scathing
remarks against the witness. All those remarks
are, therefore, ordered to be deleted from the
record.
40. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.