age to give consent to the respondent to abuse her sexually. But for that, there is no embellishment in her statement. The reasoning adopted by the Court of Session in relying on her statement is far more convincing than that of the High Court. We thus, believing the prosecutrix, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Court of Session, restoring the conviction of the respondent for the offences for which he was convicted. The sentence, however, is reduced to the period already undergone which approximates around 5 years’ r.I., under each count. This should, at this joint of time, meet the ends of justice. Before parting with the order, we have to comment upon the observations made by the high court relating to the learned Sessions judge who decided the matter. Those remarks in the judgment were absolutely uncalled for. This Court has, time and again, advised the Courts below to be extra careful in commenting upon the judicial conduct of the members of the judiciary. The adage to err is human’ must always be borne in mind and this understanding must percolate down to the appellate and the trial courts. Since presently the judgment under appeal has been upset, those remarks automatically stand expunged.
