This case raises certain interesting questions regarding procedures adopted by the courts recording oral evidence. What is the duty of such courts to the witnesses concerned, the parties to litigation and their counsel? How can it be ensured that a fair and transparent procedure is followed in the matter of recording oral evidence? What safe norms should be insisted by the system from judicial functionaries to ensure that fairness and transparency is ensured in the procedure adopted?

2. Petitioner, a lawyer practising at the High Court, has come before this Court with this petition to expunge certain observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, in the judgment in a Sessions case.

.3. That was a prosecution against two accused persons who faced allegations inter alia under S. 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was a judgment of acquittal in favour of the said two accused persons. To cut a long story short, petitioner was examined as PW3 in that case. The petitioners wife was examined as PW1. PW1, it was alleged, belongs to the Scheduled Caste whereas the petitioner does not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The evidence of PW1 was sought to be assailed on various grounds during cross examination. Inter alia, it was suggested that the petitioner and his wife were actuated by mala fides on account of the prior strain in their relationship with the accused. PW1 was in the witness box and faced cross-examination. It appears from the evidence of PW1, as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, that as many as 63 complaints were made by PW1 to the police against the accused persons and their parents and that police had referred such complaints and had not taken any action on such complaints. It was further admitted, again as per the recorded testimony, that there were many civil litigations also. PW1 had signed that deposition. She does not appear to have raised any objections at any time while signing the deposition or thereafter. The learned Sessions Judge in para 9 of the judgment of acquittal while considering point No.1 that was raised, i.e., about the acceptability of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 proceeded to observe as follows:

."9. Point No.1 :- In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused persons the prosecution has relied on the evidence of Pws1 to 3 apart from the medical evidence. Before analysing the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, it is to be noted that admittedly there were 63 criminal cases and several civil cases were launched against the parents of the accused persons by PWs 1 and 3, the victim and her husband who is a practising lawyer at High Court of Kerala and they are neighbours. It is also an admitted fact that all the 63 cases launched against the parents of the accused were referred by the police as if those were false. PW1 belongs to a scheduled caste whereas PW3 her husband belongs to Ezhava community. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 have to be scrutinised and analysed meticulously as there is every chance of tutoring in this case."

4. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the portions in para 9 extracted above, which I have underlined deserve to be and may be expunged. I have extracted the entire para 9. But the petitioner chooses to make the prayer for expunging only the observations underlined above. What is the reason? Petitioner submits that the said observations are unjustified and unwarranted. They portray the petitioner in a negative manner and in very poor light.

5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. It would be impossible for the Court to come to a conclusion that the above observations are unjustified and unwarranted. In a case like the instant one, where the acceptability of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is the most crucial issue to be considered, the admitted evidence, [as per recorded testimony] of the existence of prior animosity and prior proceedings between the par