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.