Judgment :- Heard both sides. This petition is by P.W. 17 in Sessions Case No.10 of 1124 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Parur to expunge the remarks about her in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge while disposing of the case. P.W. 17 was the lady Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital at Moovattupuzha in Medom 1123. One Sankaran Pappu, about whose death the said case came up for trial, had been sent to the hospital at Moovattupuzha with a serious injury on the head, by P.W. 16 the Medical Officer at Thodupuzha Dispensary for more efficient treatment as the facilities in Thodupuzha were limited. The patient reached Moovattupuzha at 10 A.M. on 26.9.1123. The senior Medical Officer in charge was on leave. It was suspected that this Pappu had sustained serious injury to the brain, and P.W. 17 who was the next senior in charge of the Hospital thought it proper to send him on to Kottayam for treatment after an X-ray examination of the injured parts. It was also thought necessary to have an extensive operation for which the convenience in Moovattupuzha was limited. She arranged for the ambulance van being brought from Kottayam to take the patient. It was delayed, and so she allowed the injured to be taken to Kottayam in the motor vehicle in which he was taken to Moovattupuzha. This conduct of P.Ww.16 and 17 was condemned by the judge in paragraph 26 of the judgment and that portion is extracted below: So, it is possible that under the influence of drink there was some exchange of unpleasant words when they met at the place of occurrence, and as a result of it the accused caused some serious injury on the deceased with M.O.1, which developed into a poisonous ulcer ultimately causing his death owing to the very serious and unpardonable indifference and inattention on the part of the Medical Officer (P.W. 16) of the Thodupuzha Dispensary and the Lady Assistant Surgeon (P.W. 17) who was in charge of the Moovattupuzha Hospital to which place P.W. 16, despatched the deceased for want of facilities, according to him, in Thodupuzha Dispensary to render the necessary medical aid to the deceased. P.W. 17 admits she did not render any medical aid to deceased, though he was in that hospital from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M. on 26.9.1123. P.W. 17 admits she did not render any medical aid to deceased, though he was in that hospital from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M. on 26.9.1123. She has stated in Ext. U that dying declaration of Pappu was taken by the First Class Magistrate, Moovattupuzha, but she swears before this court that the dying declaration was not recorded by the Magistrate. But this was not done as the deceased was in a delirious state of mind. She swears that for want of facilities in that hospital she sent the deceased and P.W.1 to Kottayam District Hospital. She admits that the District Medical Officer was on casual leave and that if he were present he would have done the necessary operation and rendered other Medical aid to the deceased. But she admits there was another assistant Surgeon present there and if so, they both could have done the necessary medical aid. However, either out of ignorance or want of experience or dexterity or out of indifference and inattention, the necessary medical aid was not rendered in time. Thus, the deceased a man of 75 was despatched from Thodupuzha to Moovattupuzha and from there to Kottayam, with all coolness and indifference as though man's life is no better than that of a dumb animal in a conveyance, all the time perhaps, bleeding, and by the time he reached the District hospital Kottayam, he must have been in a very bad condition, beyond safety mark and while under treatment there he passed away on 12.10.1123. The occurrence took place on 25.9.1123. I am definitely of opinion that if the necessary medical aid were rendered in time the deceased would have survived." 2. I studied the evidence of P.Ws.16 and 17, and also of P.W. 18 the Assistant Surgeon who attended on Pappu in Kottayam. Though Pappu sustained the injury at 4 P.M. on 25.9.1123, he died in the District Hospital at Kottayam only on 12.10.1123. P.W. 16 saw him first at 11.30 P.M. on 25.9.1123 when he was given first aid. The injury was bandaged to stop bleeding and all what he could do under the limited convenience was done. Since P.W. 17 bona fide thought that effective treatment could be had only after an X-ray examination, he was sent to the nearest hospital where there was this convenience. The injury was bandaged to stop bleeding and all what he could do under the limited convenience was done. Since P.W. 17 bona fide thought that effective treatment could be had only after an X-ray examination, he was sent to the nearest hospital where there was this convenience. There was absolutely nothing in the evidence of P.Ww.16 and 17 to show that they are callous or indifferent. The remarks made by the judge were quite unwarranted and unjust particularly when these witnesses had no opportunity to defend themselves. 3. The Judge instead of convicting the accused under S. 301 T.P.C. for murder, convicted him only under S. 326 T.P.C. The State preferred an appeal against this before this court in Crl. Appeal 197 of 1124 (T). The appeal was allowed and the conviction was changed to one under S. 301 T.P.C. so far as Pappu's death was concerned. The accused was also given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for the same. 4. The following observations of His Lordship the Chief Justice while disposing of the appeal are very illuminating so far as the matter in hand is concerned. "The trial court has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses correctly and has arrived at the conclusion that the injury was inflicted by the accused. It come easily within the purview of S. 301 and the acquittal of the accused under that section cannot be supported.' (See page 289 of KLT 1950, para. 2) 5. The comment by the court below on the evidence of P.Ww.16 and 17 is thus erroneous. Though P.W. 16, Sri. K.A. Arumughom Pillai had not filed any petition to expunge the remarks against him, I am to deal with the comment regarding him also as it is inter-related to that on P.W. 17. Probably this P.W. 16 has retired from service for he was 54 years of age on 6.6.1124 when he gave evidence before the Sessions Court, and hence he might be indifferent or he might not have known about these unwarranted remarks about him also in the judgment. Since the matter has been brought to my notice, I think it proper to deal with the observations made against him also. As has been pointed out in Crl. R.P. 475 of 1102 (1) 17 T.L.J. Short Notes) the courts should be careful not to travel beyond the necessities of the case. Since the matter has been brought to my notice, I think it proper to deal with the observations made against him also. As has been pointed out in Crl. R.P. 475 of 1102 (1) 17 T.L.J. Short Notes) the courts should be careful not to travel beyond the necessities of the case. On mere surmises and remote possibilities of the case they are not to pass remarks which have the effect of taking away the character of a witness appearing before it. Sneers at the position occupied by a witness besides being in bad taste are unworthy of a place in such a solemn judicial document, as a judgment. In such circumstances the High Court has the power to entertain an application by way of revision to expunge remarks made in a judgment against witnesses. (See 43 T.L.R. 263). The learned Government Pleader who appeared for the State had very fairly conceded that the remarks made by the Sessions Judge were quite unwarranted and not supported by the evidence in the case. The observations made in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the lower court regarding prosecution witnesses Nos. 16 (Dr. K.A. Arumughom Pillai) and 17 (Dr. Mrs. Janaki Gopal) are expunged. Petition allowed.