Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 6]

Supreme Court of India

Ramesh Kumar vs Ram Kumar & Ors on 26 April, 1984

Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1029, 1984 SCR (3) 640, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1029, 1984 (3) SCC 90, 1984 UJ (SC) 718, 1984 CRIAPPR(SC) 206, 1984 CURCRIJ 293, 1984 SCC(CRI) 387, (1984) SC CR R 249, 1984 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 281, (1984) 2 CRILC 21, (1984) 2 SCWR 114

Author: O. Chinnappa Reddy

Bench: O. Chinnappa Reddy, A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah

           PETITIONER:
RAMESH KUMAR

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
RAM KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/04/1984

BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:
 1984 AIR 1029		  1984 SCR  (3) 640
 1984 SCC  (3)	90	  1984 SCALE  (1)650


ACT:
     Indian  Penal  Code-S.  302  read	with  S.  34-Accused
convicted and  sentenced u/s.  302/34-Accused made  gift  of
land to	 widow for  loss of  life of  her husband-High Court
acquitted one  accused and  converted conviction of other to
one under  s. 304.  High Court Judgment-Whether correct-Held
no.



HEADNOTE:
     The two  respondents were	convicted under	 s. 302 read
with s.	 34 of	the 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 arrangement under
which one  accused had made a gift of some land to the widow
as compensation	 for the  loss of  life of  her husband. The
High Court  acquitted one  of the  accused and converted the
conviction of  the other  from one under 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  reduced to a mockery by the judgment of the High
Court. If  it is upheld, it is as if a 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 scrutiny. [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 1st September, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 291 DB of 1983, DB of 1983 & Crl. Rev. No. 627 of 1983.) Gopal Subramanium and S.K. Sabarwal for the Appellant.

641

Kawaljit Kochar and J.D. Kain for the Respondent No. 1. Miss Lily Thomas, for Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. We are very unhappy about the judgment 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 s 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 made a 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 husband. 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 conviction 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 judgment of the High Court has left us shocked and perplexed. We are at a total loss to understand it. The entire system of administration of Criminal justice is reduced to a mockery. If the judgment of the High Court is upheld, it is as if a 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.

642

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 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 may be directed to be returned to the father of the accused. We take no notice of the gift and we reject the request. 

H.S.K.					    Appeals allowed.
643