Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
"of her husband—High Court acquitted one accused and converted conviction . of other to one undr s. 304. High Court Judgment—Whether correci— —
RAMESH KUMAR Vv. >
RAM KUMAR & ORS. April 26, 1984 fo. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIA Mal
Indian Penal Code—S. 302 read with S. 34-— Accused conyicted and sentenced u/s: 302{34—Accused made gift of land to widow for loss of life
Held no.
. The two respondeits were convicted under s. ‘302 read with s. 34 of thé Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the sessions
Judge. On appeal, the High Court was informed that both the parties.
were closely related and they had come to some sort of errangement under which one accused had made a gift of some Iand to the widow as compensation for the loss of tife of her husband. The High Court acquitted one of the accused and converted the conviction of the other from’ one utider $s. 302 to one under s. 304 and reduced the sentence to>two years. - The so called arrangement between. the parties was the only reason for. what the High Court did. .
Setting aside the judgment of the High Court and remanding | ‘the matter for rehearing, this ‘Court,
“HELD : The entire system of administration of Criminal justice is rsduced to a mockery by the judgment of the High Court. If it is upheld, it is as ifa person who can afford to make ‘gifts of land or money to the heirs of the victim may get away even with a charge of murder. Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice. And, justice to be dispensed is not palm-tree justice or idiosyncratic justice. The judgment of the High Court cannot stand a second’s serutigy. [641 H; 642 A—B].
Judgment
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. -
1012 of 1984.
.
(Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the Ist September, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 291 DB of 1983, 511 DB of 1983 & Cri. Rev.
No. 627 of 1983.) | Gopal Subramanium and S.K._Sabarwal for the Appellant,
+
As - heirs of the victim may get a a
"+ RAMESH KUMAR . RAM KUMAR (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
, Kawaljit Kochar and J.D. Jain for the Respondent No. I.
_- . Miss Lily Thomas, for Respondent No. 2.
&
_The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA Reppy, i. We are very unhappy about the judg-
. ‘ment of the High Court. Both the respondents were convicted by the - learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Kurukshetra under s. 302 read -with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code ‘and’each of them was sentenced to.undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, for very
. strange reasons, the High Court acquitted the first respondent .
and converted the conviction of the second respondent to one under 9 304-A I. P.C. and reduced the sentence. to two years’ - rigorous imprisonment. What the High Court said speaks for itself. This is what the High Court}said: - : :
- ° “However, we are told by the learned counsel for the parties that they being: closely related some members of the village have intervened and have brought about some sort of arrangement under which Ram Kumar appellant has already madea gift of three-acres of land in favour of Smt. Maya Devi widow of Chander: Shekhar
". aS compensation on- account of the loss of life of.her husbaad. Though this is not a matter which can be’ taken notice of by this Court, yet it has always been our. desire to
_ See that “enmity between close relations should be encouraged to come to an end. Since the father of Ramesh Kumar _ (P.W. 6) had lost. his life, he could possibly have indulged in some exaggeration to magnify the nature of the offence. In the ‘circumstances, we give »benefit of doubt to Ram
_ Kumar appellant and acquit him. We convert the conviticn
- Of Ratna appellant from one under section 302 to one under section 304—A, Indian Penal Code and. Sentence him to
_ undergo ‘to years rigorous imprisonment Ram Kumar appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.”
We can only ‘say that: the judgmen or th High | has "left us shocked and perplexed. fo! the High Court thas
We are at a total loss it. The entire system of adminis ss to understand toa mockery.. If the judgmen ee tof the High - Court is uj ; as ifa person who- can afford't bitte of tes upheld, itis o make gifts of land or money to the way ¢ven with a charge’ of ‘murder;
tration of Criminal justice is reduced. — ne
642 | SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 8.0R.
Coutts. are ° to dispense justice, ‘not to dispense with justice. And, justice tobe dispensed is not palm-tree. justice or idiosyncratic justice: The judgment can not stand a. second’s scrutiny. “It is _ accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court so that the Criminal appeals and revision may be reheard. On behalf of the accused a very curious request was made, that the —. land, gifted’ by the father of the. accused to the widow of the ¥.°. . deceased niay be directed to be returned to the father of the accused. te . We take no notice. of th the gift and we reject: the request.
HSK. oF co | . _ Avpecls allowed. —— aw . . c. A