Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMESH KUMAR versus RAM KUMAR & ORS.

Decided
26 April 1984
Judges listed
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 640 · 1984 INSC 95
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

. ' .

p. 641, margin A

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 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 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:

p. 641, margin A

. "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

p. 641, margin C

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."

p. 641, margin C

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;

p. 641, margin G

' (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 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.

p. 642