Holding

A private arrangement of compensation cannot vitiate a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, and the High Court's judgment is set aside.

Summary

Ramesh Kumar and Ram Kumar were convicted by a Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, relying on a claim that Ram Kumar had gifted three acres of land to the victim's widow as compensation, acquitted Ram Kumar and reduced the other conviction to Section 304A, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that such a private arrangement cannot affect the legal assessment of murder and that the High Court's reasoning reduced the administration of criminal justice to a mockery. It emphasized that courts must dispense justice, not idiosyncratic justice based on the parties' ability to offer compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remanded the matter for rehearing. The Court also rejected a request to return the gifted land to the accused's father. The appeal was allowed, restoring the original convictions pending fresh consideration by the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether a private settlement or gift of land can justify acquittal or reduction of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in converting a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304A) on the basis of the alleged compensation.
Whether the principle of justice permits the consideration of extrajudicial compensation in determining guilt for murder.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304A, s. 34

Subjects

murderIPC Section 302IPC Section 34IPC Section 304Acriminal appealprivate settlementcompensationjustice

Judgment

\

640
•
- • •
A RAMESH KUMAR
v.
RAM KUMAR & O,RS.
'1- .•
April 26, 1984
B
[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-
c 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 relat~d and they bad come to some sort of •rrana:ement under
D 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
F are to dispense j0:stice, not to dispense with justice. And, ju~tice 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.
G·
(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.)
B
Gopa/ S1.1bram1mium and S.K._S(lbarwal for the Appellant.
RAMESH KUMAR v. RAM KUMAR (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)

, Kawa/jit Kochar and J.D. Jain for the Responde~t No. 1. A

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- B
'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
lrenten~ed 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 c
1 304-A l. P. c: and reduced the sentence. to two years' rigorous
imprisonme~t. 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
appell~nt 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 E
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.
F
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."
G
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. w~o- c1n 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;
642 '
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.ll.

A 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
B land gifted" by the father of ihe accused to the widow of ·the
dece~sed 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.

•

•
•
,