Lamenting the
failure of the courts in awarding compensation to the victims in terms of
Section 357(1) CrPC, the Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment
(Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others) has emphasised that rehabilitating the victim is
as important as punishing the accused. The Court also highlighted the need to compensate the
victim in criminal cases, which, it said is integral to just sentencing.
 |
The Apex Court has highlighted the need to compensate the
victim in criminal cases, which it said, is integral to just sentencing
|
“Order of sentence in a
criminal case needs due application of mind. The Court has to give attention
not only to the nature of crime, prescribed sentence, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances to strike just balance in needs of society and
fairness to the accused, but also to keep in mind the need to give justice to
the victim of crime. In spite of legislative changes and decisions of this
Court, this aspect at times escapes attention. Rehabilitating victim is as
important as punishing the accused. Victim’s plight cannot be ignored even when
a crime goes unpunished for want of adequate evidence,” said a Bench of the Apex
Court consisting of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, while hearing an
appeal preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
The case involved as
many as 13 accused who were tried on the allegations that they assaulted and
caused injuries to PW-5- Manohar Singh, appellant, Devi Singh PW-4, Maan Singh
PW-11 and Karan Singh PW-1 on 29th October, 1980 at around 2 P.M. with a view
to disturb the possession of the complainant party on the agricultural land in
question. The trial Court convicted the accused including respondent
Nos.2 to 11 and one Mool Singh, son of Jaswant Singh who died during pendency
of the proceedings. The Sessions Court had set aside the conviction of the
accused for offences other than the one under Section 323 IPC but maintained
the conviction under Section 323 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the trial Court was also set aside and the accused were granted probation
subject to fine of Rs.5,000/- which was to be paid to the victim. The
injured PWs, namely, Karan Singh, Devi Singh and Maan Singh entered into the
compromise and compounded the offence qua them but the appellant filed a
revision in the High Court which was dismissed.
The appellant before
the Apex Court contended that the Court of Sessions erred in setting aside the
conviction for offences other than Section 323 and also erred in granting
benefit of probation. The fine imposed was not adequate and having regard to
number of injuries and their nature, adequate compensation ought to have been
granted. The appellant received as many as 10 injuries including an incised
wound in the parietal region by sharp edged weapon, a muscle deep injury on the
front of left leg and a bone deep injury just above the front of left leg. “Even
if technically, the injury could be held to be simple instead of grievous, the
sentence should have been adequate and in any case, due compensation ought to
have been granted,” contended the counsel for the appellant.
The Apex Court, taking
into account the fact that 35 years had passed since the date of occurrence
said that “while it may not be
appropriate to impose the sentence of imprisonment at this stage, having regard
to the nature and extent of injuries, the appellant-complainant deserves to be
duly compensated.” It was in this context that the above observations on
the need to compensate the victim were made by the Court.
Elucidating on the various aspects to be
considered by the Court in the matter of compensating the victim, the Bench
said: “Just compensation to the victim
has to be fixed having regard to the medical and other expenses, pain and
suffering, loss of earning and other relevant factors. While punishment to the
accused is one aspect, determination of just compensation to the victim is the
other. At times, evidence is not available in this regard. Some guess work in
such a situation is inevitable. Compensation is payable under Section 357 and
357-A. While under section 357, financial capacity of the accused has to be kept
in mind, Section 357-A under which compensation comes out of State funds, has
to be invoked to make up the requirement of just compensation.”
The Apex Court also referred to several decisions on the subject including State of
Gujarat and anr. vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7
SCC 392 , Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
984] , Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1978)
4 SCC 111 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 549], Balraj v. State of U.P [(1994)
4 SCC 29 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 823], Baldev Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1995) 6 SCC 593 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1132], and Dilip S. Dahanukar v.
Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 528 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 209] to
highlight the fact that the Supreme Court had recommended to all courts to exercise the power available under Section
357 CrPC liberally so as to meet the ends of justice.
The Apex Court also referred to
its decision in State of A.P.
v. Polamala Raju [(2000) 7 SCC 75
: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1284] wherein it had set aside the judgment of the High Court for
non-application of mind to the question of sentencing and held “..it is an obligation of the sentencing court to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the
question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the
offence…
..while
the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the
court’s discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its
mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the
question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing
compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of
mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to
arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the
occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically
arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the
accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order under Section
357 CrPC would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the
facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court
considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on
sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence
and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or
his/her family.”
The Apex Court, in the light of the precedents
on the point, thereafter proceeded to set aside the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
directed the surviving respondents (accused) to pay the appellant a sum of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) within two months, and in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
