640 •

- • •

RAMESH KUMAR

RAM KUMAR & O, RS.

April 26, 1984

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.)

-· Indian Penal Code-S. 302 read with S. 34 _ _.:.Acc14sed convicted and stntimced u/s; 302/34-Accused made gift of land to widow .for loss of fife of her burbmd-1/igh Court acquirted one accused and converted conviction of other to one und r s. 304.

High Court Judgment-Whether cotreci- Held no.

The two 'respoitdeilts were convicted under s. -~02 read with s. 34 of the Indian Peri31 Code .and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge.

On appeal, the High Court was informed that -both the parties." were closely relatd and they bad come to some sort of •rrana:ement under which one accused had made a gift' of some land to the widoW as compen .. • sation -for the loss of-1ife of her husband.

The Hi'gh Court acquitted one of the Jccused and converted the onviction 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 tile High Court did. ·

E Setting aside tho judgment of the High Court and remanding. tho

luatter for rehearing~ thi!f Court,

HELD : The entire system of admiilistration of CriminaJ ju_stiCt,-is rsduced to a mockery by the judgment of the High Court. If it is uphel~, 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 j0:stice, not to dispense with justice.

And, jutice to be dispensed is not p8.lm-tree justice or idiosyncratic justice.

The judgment of the mgh Court cannot .stand a second's scrutiqy. [641 H; 642 A-BJ.

CRIMIN,\L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1012 of 1984.

(Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the !st September, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 291 DB of 1983, 511 ))B of 1983 & Cr!. Rev.

No. 627 of !983.)

Gopa/ S1.1bram1mium and S.K._S(lbarwal for the Appellant.

'1- .•

RAMESH KUMAR v. RAM KUMAR (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)

, Kawa/jit Kochar and J.D. Jain for the Respondet No. 1.

Miss Lily Thomas, for Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . . ' .

CaiNNAPPA REDDY, J.

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 witk s. 34 of the I_ndia11 Penal Code and 'each of them was

lrentened 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 1 304-A l. P. c: and reduced the sentence. to two years' rigorous

imprisonmet. What the High Court said speaks for itself. This is what the High CourtJsaid:

. "However, we are told by the learned counsel for the parpes that they being closely related some members of the village have.· intervened and have brought about some sort of arrangement under. which Ram Kumar

appellnt has already made a gift of three-acres . of land in favonr of Smt. Maya Devi widow of Chander Shekhar .·. as compensation on account of the loss of life of.her

husbaad. 1 ho1,1gh this is not a matter which can be taken notice of by' thi~ Court, yet it has always been our desire to see that-enmity between close relations should be encoura- . ged to come to an end. Since the father of Ramesh Kumar

(P. W. 6) had lost h_is 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 convition of RatRa 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 appel !ant is m bait His bail bond shall siand charged."

We can only say that the judgment.of the High Court has left us shocked and P?rplexed.

We are at a total loss to understand it. The entire system o~ administration of Criminal justice is reduced to mocke_ry, If the Judgment o( the ffigh Court is upheld, lt is as .1fa person. woc1n afford to make gifts of land or money to t_he )!en's of the v1cttm may get away even with a charge_ of murder;

• "

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.ll.

Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice. And, justice to be dispensed is not palm-tree justice o.r idiosyncratic justice. The judgment. can not stand a second's scrutiny. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remancled to the 'High Court so that the Criminal appeals and revision may he reheard. On

behalf of the accused a very curious request was made, that the land gifted" by the father of ihe accused to the widow of the

decesed 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.

• • ,