Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) 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 Section 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 encourage 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 S. 302 to one under S. 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment Ram Kumar apellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged."
(2.) 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. Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice. And, justice to be dispensed is not palmtree justice or idiosyncratic justice. The judgment cannot 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.;