The Allahabad High Court has asked trial court judges to avoid recording abusive words in orders and statements of witnesses [Santreepa Devi v. State of UP and 6 Others].

Justice Harvir Singh observed that Supreme Court and the High Court from time to time have directed that “decent and normal language” should be used in orders and while recording the statements of witnesses. 

However, the Bench found that a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had reproduced abusive language in an order as well as the statement of a witness.

“The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate, hence it is directed that not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the state judiciary, shall take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words, those have been used in the order in question and the statement of PW-1 recorded on 30.04.2024. The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders,” the Court said.

It directed that its order be circulated among all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh for compliance. 

“This order is being passed in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity,” Justice Singh said.

The Court was hearing a revision plea challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act). The complaint pertained to an altercation in which injuries were caused and a woman’s mangalsutra was snatched at gunpoint. However, the trial court had dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The High Court agreed with the trial court decision, observing that statements of witnesses lacked coherence to make out a prima facie case against the proposed accused.

“The other witnesses did not support the statement of PW1 namely, the revisionist herself and therefore, mere allegations made against the person is not sufficient, unless other cogent material is available on record. Moreover, the medical report referred in the revision suggests, that all the injuries are simple in nature, but it has not come on record that they have been caused by which weapon is not known and the allegations of assault have just been made against the opposite party no. 2 and there is no material on record to show that the order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act is illegal and arbitrary,” the single judge said.

Advocate Rajiv Chowdhury represented the revisionist.

[Read Order]