In expressing opinions and passing remarks, a judge should exercise much restraint as held in S.K. Ghosh vs. State [AIR 1969 Orissa 228], In re Rama Swamy [AIR 1958 Mad. 305] is an instance where it is pointed out that it is open for the High Court to expunge remarks from an impugned judgment in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

The Supreme Court went to the extent of expunging certain remarks made by a judge of the High Court of Allahabad, against the State Government when an appeal was preferred by State Government [vide. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. J.N. Bagga Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1959 dt. 16-1-1961].

To quote a recent example, District Judge Prem Kumar of the Delhi Metropolis, it was reported in news-papers, is said to have made bitter and harsh remarks against ex-Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao when P.V. Narasimha Rao figured as an accused in the Court, at the stage of the case was consideration regarding the framing of the charges. Perhaps there was no necessity for the judge to make any comments at that stage, since the order could have been pronounced without passing strictures against P.V. Narasimha Rao; further it was only pre-trial stage where there was no necessity to go into the conduct of the accused.

It is now settled law as held in Nageshwar Shri Krishna Ghowe vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1973 S.C. 165], that the opinion should be expressed in the judgment in temporal language reflecting the impersonal dignity of the judicial restrain and strong language in condemning a party, a witness or a third party to the proceedings, or casting aspirations unnecessarily against such a person or uncalled for trends in the judgment.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It may also be pointed out that remarks of general character reflecting upon the conduct or character of the witness or accused should be avoided these days.

Absence of reasons in the judgments vitiates the very judgment. The reasons should be stated to show chiefly to the appellate Court and to one and all that the trial Court applied its mind in delivering its verdict. As pointed out in Empress vs. Maheshu [1886 All.W.N. 20], the decision should be based on evidence and not on speculation or theories as to probabilities.

A conviction based on conjunctions or assumptions not supported by evidence, which is neither the prosecution case nor the defence version is illegal, [vide Ram Surat vs. King Emperor [1926 Cri.L.J. 1346]