The Supreme Court has cautioned the subordinate courts from making disparaging remarks against witnesses or others, even if they find their depositions to be unworthy.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has cautioned the subordinate courts from making disparaging remarks against witnesses or others, even if they find their depositions to be unworthy.
"Judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve," a bench of Justices C K Thakker and P Sathasivam, observed, while slamming a trial court in Punjab for making unwarranted remarks against a prosecution witness in a dowry death case.
Quoting an observation of the former Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwathi's, the apex court said judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses.
They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief resulting in injustice, the apex court said.
The trial court had remarked that there was "falsehood" on the part of the witness Gopal Singh who had alleged that accused Manmohan Singh was also responsible for the death of his wife Reeta Kumari, who committed suicide within a few months after marriage due to harassment for dowry.
However, it convicted Manmohan Singh under Section 498A (harassment) and his parents Kishan Singh and Bachni Singh to seven years RI for offences under Section 304B (dowry death).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, acquitted Manmohan Singh but upheld the conviction of the parents, as the husband who was serving the Army was not at home during most of the time when the deceased was subjected to harassment.
In the appeal, the apex court while upholding the findings of the High Court however, took exception to the remark of the trial court that one of the witness had resorted to "falsehood."
The apex court observed that the witness might have committed some mistake in giving the proper account of the time during which the husband had reportedly demanded dowry from the deceased.
"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," the apex court observed.
The bench further quoted an apex court ruling 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."
Therefore, all those remarks are to be deleted from the record, the apex court directed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}