HARIHAR BAHINIPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-1973-12-9
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on December 17,1973

Harihar Bahinipati Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. Acharya, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expunge certain remarks appearing against p.w. 5 in the judgment dated 9 -2 -1970 of Shri U.N. Padhi, Sub -divisional Magistrate, Puri, in 3(c) C.C. 73/67.
(2.) MR . Misra (2) while moving the said petition directed his submission only against certain remarks appearing against p.w. 5 in the last sentence of paragraph 9 in the impugned judgment which is as follows: This immediate inaction of C.S.O. to come immediately gave rise to indignation of p.w. 5. for which he criticised the Government in a subsequent meeting but C.S.O. knew where shoe was pinching. Mr. Misra contended that the finding regarding the indignation of p.w. 5, and his subsequent conduct in addressing a meeting as referred to in the said sentence were objectionable, irrelevant, conjectural and not required for the decision of the case, and hence should be expunged from the impugned judgment. Judges of all categories while writing out judgments have to express their opinion regarding the veracity, conduct and character of a witness as borne out by the evidence on record. They should be able to freely express their reaction to any unusual conduct of a witness is relation to matters in question. But while expressing their opinion on such matters they should not indulge in making unnecessary references about facts which do not at all require consideration for deciding the case before them. Remarks, observations or reference to facts, which are absolutely not necessary for the decision of the matter before the Judge, should be scrupulously avoided. Judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and anything which does not 'directly arise for the consideration of the case before the Court, need not be mentioned in the judgment. Judges are not expected to play to the gallery and to express anything in their judgments and orders which are absolutely of no relevance for the decision of the case. At time of course the unusual conduct or under serving or unbecoming attitude of certain witnesses, specially when they belong to the public services, have to be highlighted in the judgments, may be in a manner not strictly necessary for the decision of the case, but that can be done only with the able intention and the salutary purpose of preventing, repetition or recurrence of such reprehensible conduct or, attitude on their part affecting administration of justice.
(3.) THE findings of the Court below in the above quoted sentence about the indignation of p.w. 5 resulting from the failure of the Civil Supplies Officer to come immediately to the shop of the accused, and the holding of a meeting by p.w. 5 on a subsequent occasion, in the context they have been stated, were absolutely unnecessary for the decision of the case on merits or for the assessment of the evidence of p.w. 5. The remark about the said supposed mental reaction of p.w. 5, apart from being conjectural, is out of place and not relevant on any consideration. If there was any cause for indignation, that was against the Civil Supplies Officer and the consideration of the same along with the matter relating to the meeting does not help the Court in deciding the matter before it. I am, therefore, of the view that the entire sentence should be expunged from the impugned judgment, and by doing so the judgment is not affected in any manner whatsoever.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.