SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 128

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, A.P.SEN
Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, J.D.JAIN, KAVAL JIT KOCHAR, LILY THOMAS, S.K.SABHARWAL

JUDGMENT

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 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 fathe



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top