http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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