SUJATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. C. No 284 of 1985, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ernakulam convicted the second respondent for offences punishable under S. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. As Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, the petitioner acquitted him allowing Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1987. In Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1987, this Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence. This petition, filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to expunge certain passages from the judgment of this Court.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved mainly for the following reasons: (1) The passages sought to be expunged received wide publicity in papers and affected her integrity and honesty as a judicial officer; (2) They are outside the scope of enquiry in the appeal and unnecessary for the decision as an integral part of it; and (3) They are not justified because they involve aspects of appreciation of evidence in which different views are possible and she did not get an opportunity of being heard to justify her views.

(3.) PWS 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are the occurrence witnesses. Among them, PW4 is a police constable on duty on the spot and PW 7 is the pedestrian who was knocked down. PW 7 was disinterested in giving evidence because of some financial help from the accused. But he said he was knocked down. PW 4 was also not very earnest in giving evidence though his evidence reveals rashness. The case of the accused is that brake failed and he was forced to stop the bus by hitting against a tree. PWS 1, 2 and 8 are the colleagues of the accused who were inside the bus. Though they had no basis to support the case of brake failure they were attempting to support the accused in that respect. All of them turned hostile and even refused to admit that PW 7 was knocked down even though he was also treated along with them in the hospital. PW 3 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the bus and submitted Ext. P1 inspection report stating that brake was efficient and there was no mechanical defect.