Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Appala Swamy @ Kommuru vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P. on 20 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD(CRI)413, 2000CRILJ4487
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expunge certain remarks made against the petitioner herein in the judgment dated 6.10.1998 in Sessions Case No.44/95 on the file of the learned I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vishakapatnam. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in this petition, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Bhogapuram village and he claims to be an agriculturist. He was a Member of Parliament during 1980-84. He owns certain properties in Vishakapatnam. One Annapurnamma was the wife of the petitioner's brother who purchased a site at Dwarakanagar under Co-operative Scheme allotment and constructed a house. After the death of the petitioner's brother in the year 1985 the house was given to his wife Smt. Annapurnamma and the petitioner claims to have good relations with Smt. Annapurnamma. On 3.8.1992 at about 9.30 a.m. the petitioner is stated to have received a phone call that Smt. Annapurnamma was done to death. On receiving the said phone call the petitioner sent his nephew along with two boys to confirm about the death of his sister-in-law. Thereafter, he immediately rushed to Vishakapatnam at about 11.30 a.m. In respect of the said incident a case in Cr.No.349/92 of IV Town Police Station was registered. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against three persons A1 to A3. It was numbered as P.R.C.No.35/92 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakapatnam. As the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was numbered as S.C.No.44/95 against A-1 and A-2 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vishakapatnam. The case against A-3 was separated as he was absconding and it was numbered as S.C.No.58/1995.
3. The petitioner herein was examined in S.C.No.44 of 1995 as P.W.5 on 9.7.1998. In his evidence the petitioner stated that the deceased was his brother's wife. She had no issues. His brother expired in the year 1989. The petitioner used to visit the house of Annapurnamma now and then and was in talking terms. The deceased Annapurnamma used to wear the jewellery by changing items from day-to-day and there were separate items prepared and used by her in a week, that is to say, there were several items of jewellery, which she used to wear. The deceased Annapurnamma and her husband used to treat him as their son. On receiving the phone call at about 9.30 a.m. he sent his nephew along with two more boys to confirm the death of Smt. Annapurnamma and on the same day, that is to say, 2nd August, 1992, at about 11.30 a.m. he reached Vizag where the dead body was lying. By then some police officers were present. No jewellery was found on her body except the nose stud and ear studs. The police recorded his detailed statement. Later police informed him that M.O. Nos. 1 and 2 were recovered by the police. He was also informed that culprits were caught. He is the sole representative of Smt. Annapurnamma. This is all what he has stated in his examination-in-chief.
4. From his statement it is so clear that he was only a formal witness. The police recorded his statement at the time of the inquest and he deposed in brief what is stated herein above. However, in the cross-examination a suggestion appears to have been made to him that Smt. Annapurnamma used to lock the doors as she was under the impression that he would kill her. Another wild suggestion appears to have been made to the petitioner suggesting that with the help of his followers, goondas, Officers and police, the case was fabricated against the accused who were innocent, to get rid of the blame thrown by the Newspapers and people saying that the petitioner was responsible for her murder. These are the wild suggestions made by the defence to the petitioner who was examined as P.W.5.
5. Suffice it to notice that the petitioner was not even prosecuted for any offence as such. In the said Sessions case before the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, he appeared only as a formal witness. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1 for the offences punishable ;under sections 302 and 412 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 302 I.P.C.; further imprisoned to undergo four years R.I. for the offence punishable under section 412 I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. A-2 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months. We are not concerned with the validity and correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge as the same is not the subject matter of any debate in this case.
6. Be thus it may, the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge while disposing of the sessions case made the following remarks against the petitioner:
"There is enmity between P.W.5 and Annapoornamma with regard to Annapoornamma settling properties by creating a trust etc. As such, P.W.5 might have engaged A-1 and other 2 persons to kill the deceased with an intention to grab the entire property without allowing Annapoornamma to create a trust for the welfare of the proof, i.e., education etc............
On hearing the news that Annapoornamma died, a prudent and reasonable man immediately go to the house of deceased. The fact that immediately after receipt of information by P.W.5 about the death of deceased, he did not go to the house of the deceased speaks volumes and that about the conduct of P.W.5 and animosity towards deceased. P.W.5 pretends as if such things will not happened. He might have appointed A1 and others to kill deceased. Otherwise, there is no meaning for P.W.5 for sending another person to confirm the news conveyed to him by an important person, Chalapathi Rao. Non-examination of Chalapathi Rao is not fatal to the prosecution case because P.W.5 admitted that Chalapathi Rao, BJP leader informed him over phone that Annapoornamma died. Unfortunately, prosecution, for the reasons best known to them, fails to investigate on those lines also. I am of the view that A-1 and others might have been engaged by P.W.5 to kill the deceased."
7. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge having made such disparaging remarks himself observed that the guilt of P.W.5 is not established as there is no allegation against him nor there is any investigation about the involvement of the petitioner herein in the commission of the said crime.
8. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the remarks made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge are wholly untenable and unsustainable in law. Learned Senior counsel submits that the judges while discharging their judicial functions are required to exercise utmost restraint in making comments about the conduct of those persons whose conduct is not the subject matter of any debate in the proceedings before the Court.
In my considered opinion, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge was unjustified in making any comments whatsoever against the petitioner herein and particularly the remarks referred to herein above which are impugned in this petition. The conduct of the petitioner was never put in issue before the learned Sessions Judge. He was examined as P.W.5 only as a formal witness. Wild allegations made by the defence counsel during cross-examination of the witness cannot form the basis for making such disparaging remarks against the witness. The majesty of law and the dignity of the courts compel the courts to be careful in making such remarks. No comments adversely affecting the reputation, integrity and conduct of a person could be made unless such conduct is directly put in issue. It is not as if some observations were made by the learned Judge while appreciating his evidence for the purpose of deciding as to whether his evidence is acceptable and believable. The learned Judge went astray and made the disparaging remarks without any basis whatsoever. In my considered opinion, the learned Judge ought to have restrained himself from making such observations.
In the STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs. MOHAMMED NAIM1 the Supreme Court observed:
"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..........For a sweeping generalization of such a nature there must be a sure foundation and the necessity of the case must demand it."
In NIRANJAN PATNAIK Vs. SASIBHUSHAN KAR2 the Supreme Court observed:
"It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct."
9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was not being prosecuted as an accused in the said sessions case. It is nobody's case that the Investigating Officers have deliberately omitted to array the petitioner herein as an accused to the said Sessions Case. On the other hand, he was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. His conduct was never put in issue nor was there any necessity to make such sweeping observations against the petitioner. The petitioner is almost accused of hatching a plan to kill the deceased with an intention to grab the entire property. The observations made by the learned Judge that the petitioner might have appointed A-1 and others to kill the deceased, is nothing but the result of wild imagination on the part of the learned Judge. Such comments and remarks adversely affecting the conduct and reputation of even the witnesses is totally unwarranted. The courts should not indulge in such acts of making disparaging remarks without any foundation whatsoever. The courts and learned Judges presiding over the courts should be free from prejudices and derelictions. Emotional outbursts are to be avoided at any cost. No remarks except when they are required to be made for the purpose of disposing of an issue or a point that may arise for consideration in a lis, should be made by the courts. I wish to say no more on this aspect as I am also bound to restrain myself in making any further comments about the conduct of the learned Judge who made such disparaging remarks.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned remarks are quashed and the petition is allowed.