Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 99   OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.1491 of 2012)

MANOHAR SINGH                                    …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.                 …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order  

dated 23rd  November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at  

Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2009 by the complainant against the  

acquittal of the respondents of offences other than Section 323 of the  

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and grant of probation to them setting aside  

the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. As many as  

13  accused  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.  

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

3. 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.  Respondent Nos.2 to 11 were convicted  

and sentenced as follows :

Sl.No.Name  of  the  accused

Convicted and Sentence Imposed

1. Ladu Singh Under  Section  323  IPC  to  undergo  RI  for  three  months; Under Section 326 IPC to undergo RI  for   four  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-  and  in   default  to  undergo further  imprisonment  of  three  months;  Under Section 324 IPC to undergo RI for   one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default   to undergo further imprisonment of one month.    

2. Mange  Singh,  Hanuman Singh  son  of  Udai  Singh,  Sumer  Singh  and  Tej   Singh

Under Section 325 IPC to   undergo RI for two years   and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  in  default  to   undergo  further  imprisonment  of  two  months;   Under  Section  323  IPC  to  undergo  RI  for  three  months.

3. Chotu Singh Under Section 324 IPC to undergo RI for one year   and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.500/-  and  in  default  to   undergo  further  imprisonment  of   one  month;   Under  Section  323,  IPC  to  undergo  RI  for  three   months  

4. Mool  Singh,  Anand  Singh,  Sohan  Singh,  Hanuman  Singh  S/o  Jaswant  Singh  and  Bhanwar Singh

Under  Section  323,  IPC,  to  undergo  RI  for  three  months.

4. On  appeal,  the  Court  of  Sessions  set  aside  the  conviction  for  

offences other than the one under Section 323 IPC but maintained the  

conviction under Section 323 IPC.  The sentence of imprisonment 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.     

2

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

5. 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.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel  for  the appellant  submitted 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.  Thus,  

the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the respondent  

Devi Singh has died during pendency of the proceedings in this Court.  

Interference by this  Court was not called for at this  stage when 35  

years have passed after the occurrence.  In any case, it may not be  

appropriate  to  give  any  sentence  of  imprisonment  to  any  of  the  

3

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

accused and at best compensation may be directed to be paid by the  

accused or the State to the appellant.

9. After giving due consideration to the rival submissions, we are of  

the view 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.

10. We find that the Court of Sessions and the High Court have not  

fully focused on the need to compensate the victim which can now be  

taken to be 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.

11. In the present case, following injuries were found on the appellant  

by Dr. A.P. Modi, PW-2:-

“1.Bruise 6 cm x 4 cm down of right forearms.  2. Bruise 8 cm x 2 cm front of right arms. 3. Bruise 8 cm x 2 cm front of right arms.

4

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

4. Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm right supra scupular   region. 5. Swelling of right shoulder with tenderness. 6. Bruise 15 cm x 2 cm on the middle of the  back. 7. Abbression 1 cm x 1 cm left forearms. 8. Incised boon 2.5 x 0.5 x muscle deep fost of   left leg. 9. Lancirated boon 3 x 1 cm x bone deep above  injury  no.8. 10. Incised boon 8 cm x 0.5 x bone deep on right   parital region.”

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.

12. We  may  refer  to  some  recent  decisions  on  the  subject.    

In State of Gujarat and anr. vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat1,  

it was observed:

“46. One area which is  totally  overlooked in   the above practice is the plight of the victims.   It is a recent trend in the sentencing policy to   listen  to  the  wailings  of  the  victims.   

1 (1998) 7 SCC 392

5

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

Rehabilitation of the prisoner need not be by  closing the eyes towards the suffering victims  of  the  offence.  A  glimpse  at  the  field  of   victimology reveals two types of victims. The  first type consists of direct victims, i.e., those   who are alive and suffering on account of the  harm inflicted by the prisoner while committing  the  crime.  The  second  type  comprises  of   indirect  victims  who  are  dependants  of  the  direct victims of crimes who undergo sufferings  due to deprivation of their breadwinner. 94. In recent years, the right to reparation for   victims of violation of human rights is gaining   ground.  The  United  Nations  Commission  of   Human  Rights  has  circulated  draft  Basic  Principles  and  Guidelines  on  the  Right  to  Reparation  for  Victims  of  Violation  of  Human  Rights. (see annexure)”

13. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra2, it was  

observed:

“30. In  Hari Singh v.  Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4  SCC  551  :  1998  SCC  (Cri)  984] this  Court  lamented the failure of the courts in awarding  compensation  to  the  victims  in  terms  of   Section 357(1) CrPC. The Court recommended  to  all  courts  to  exercise  the  power  available   under Section 357 CrPC liberally so as to meet   the ends of  justice.  The Court said:  (SCC pp.   557-58, para 10)

“10. …  Sub-section  (1)  of  Section  357  provides  power  to  award compensation  to  victims  of  the  offence  out  of  the  sentence of fine imposed on accused. …  It  is  an  important  provision  but  courts   have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to  ignorance of the object of it. It empowers   the  court  to  award  compensation  to   victims  while  passing  judgment  of   conviction  .   In addition to conviction, the   court  may  order  the  accused  to  pay  some amount by way of compensation to  victim who has suffered by the action of   accused. It may be noted that this power  of  courts to award compensation is not   

2 (2013) 6 SCC 770

6

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

ancillary to other sentences but it  is  in   addition  thereto.  This  power  was  intended to do something to reassure the  victim that he or she is not forgotten in   the  criminal  justice  system.  It  is  a   measure of  responding appropriately to   crime  as  well  of  reconciling  the  victim  with the offender. It is, to some extent, a   constructive  approach  to  crimes.  It  is   indeed  a  step  forward  in  our  criminal   justice  system.  We,  therefore,   recommend to all courts to exercise this   power liberally so as to meet the ends of   justice in a better way  .”   

 (emphasis  supplied)

31. The  amount  of  compensation,  observed  this Court, was to be determined by the courts  depending upon the facts and circumstances of   each  case,  the  nature  of  the  crime,  the   justness of the claim and the capacity of the   accused to pay. 32. In 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], Dilip S. Dahanukar  v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 528 :  (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 209] this Court held that the  power of the courts to award compensation to  victims  under  Section  357 is  not  ancillary  to   other  sentences  but  in  addition  thereto  and  that  imposition  of  fine  and/or  grant  of   compensation to a great extent must depend  upon the relevant factors apart from such fine   or compensation being just and reasonable. In   Dilip  S.  Dahanukar  case this  Court  even  favoured an inquiry albeit summary in nature   to  determine  the  paying  capacity  of  the  offender. The Court said: (SCC p. 545, para 38)

“38. The  purpose  of  imposition  of  fine  and/or grant of compensation to a great   extent  must  be  considered  having  the  relevant factors therefor in mind. It may  be compensating the person in one way  or  the  other.  The  amount  of   compensation  sought  to  be  imposed,   thus,  must  be  reasonable  and  not   

7

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

arbitrary.  Before  issuing  a  direction  to   pay  compensation,  the  capacity  of  the   accused  to  pay  the  same  must  be  judged.  A  fortiori,  an  enquiry  in  this   behalf even in a summary way, may be  necessary. Some reasons, which may not   be very elaborate, may also have to be   assigned;  the  purpose  being  that  whereas  the  power  to  impose  fine  is   limited  and  direction  to  pay  compensation  can  be  made for  one  or   the other factors enumerated out of the  same; but sub-section (3) of Section 357  does not impose any such limitation and  thus,  power  thereunder  should  be  exercised only in appropriate cases. Such  a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the  whims and caprice of a Judge.”

33. The long line of judicial pronouncements of   this Court recognised in no uncertain terms a   paradigm shift in the approach towards victims   of crimes who were held entitled to reparation,   restitution  or  compensation  for  loss  or  injury   suffered by them. This shift from retribution to   restitution began in the mid-1960s and gained  momentum  in  the  decades  that  followed.   Interestingly the clock appears to have come  full  circle by the lawmakers and courts going  back in a great measure to what was in ancient   times  common  place.  Harvard  Law  Review  (1984)  in  an  article  on  Victim  Restitution  in  Criminal  Law  Process:  A  Procedural  Analysis  sums  up  the  historical  perspective  of  the  concept of restitution in the following words:

“Far  from  being  a  novel  approach  to   sentencing,  restitution  has  been  employed  as  a  punitive  sanction  throughout  history.  In  ancient  societies,   before the conceptual separation of civil   and criminal law, it was standard practice   to require an offender to reimburse the  victim or his family for any loss caused  by the offense. The primary purpose of   such restitution was not to compensate  the  victim,  but  to  protect  the  offender  from violent retaliation by the victim or  the community. It was a means by which  the offender  could  buy back the peace  

8

Page 9

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

he  had  broken.  As  the  State  gradually   established  a  monopoly  over  the  institution of punishment, and a division   between civil and criminal law emerged,   the  victim’s  right  to  compensation  was  incorporated into civil law.”

46. The amendments to Cr.PC brought about in   2008 focused heavily on the rights of victims in   a criminal trial, particularly in trials relating to   sexual  offences.  Though  the  2008  amendments left Section 357 unchanged, they  introduced  Section  357-A  under  which  the  Court is empowered to direct the State to pay   compensation  to  the  victim  in  such  cases  where

“the  compensation  awarded  under  Section  357  is  not  adequate  for  such  rehabilitation, or where the cases end in   acquittal or discharge and the victim has   to be rehabilitated”.

Under this provision, even if the accused is not   tried but the victim needs to be rehabilitated,   the  victim  may  request  the  State  or  District   Legal  Services  Authority  to  award  him/her   compensation.  This  provision  was  introduced  due to the recommendations made by the Law  Commission  of  India  in  its  152nd  and  154th   Reports in 1994 and 1996 respectively. 48. The question then is whether the plenitude  of  the  power  vested  in  the  courts  under   Sections 357 and 357-A, notwithstanding, the  courts  can  simply  ignore  the  provisions  or   neglect  the  exercise  of  a  power  that  is   primarily meant to be exercised for the benefit   of  the  victims  of  crimes  that  are  so  often   committed though less frequently punished by  the courts. In other words, whether courts have  a duty to advert to the question of awarding   compensation to the victim and record reasons   while granting or refusing relief to them? 49. The  language  of  Section  357  CrPC  at  a   glance may not suggest that any obligation is   cast  upon  a  court  to  apply  its  mind  to  the  question  of  compensation.  Sub-section  (1)  of   Section 357 states that the Court “may” order  for the whole or any part of a fine recovered to   

9

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

be  applied  towards  compensation  in  the  following cases:

(i) To any person who has suffered loss or   injury  by  the  offence,  when  in  the  opinion of the court, such compensation   would be recoverable by such person in   a civil court. (ii) To a person who is entitled to recover   damages under the Fatal Accidents Act,   when  there  is  a  conviction  for  causing  death or abetment thereof. (iii) To a bona fide purchaser of property,   which has become the subject of  theft,   criminal  misappropriation,  criminal   breach of trust, cheating, or receiving or   retaining or disposing of stolen property,   and which is ordered to be restored to its   rightful owner.

50. Sub-section  (3)  of  Section  357  further   empowers the court  by stating that it  “may”  award compensation even in such cases where   the sentence imposed does not include a fine.   The legal position is, however, well established   that  cases  may  arise  where  a  provision  is   mandatory  despite  the  use  of  language  that   makes it discretionary. We may at the outset,   refer to the  oft-quoted passage from  Julius v.  Lord  Bishop  of  Oxford  [(1880)  5  AC  214  :  (1874-80)  All  ER  Rep  43  (HL)] wherein  the  Court summed up the legal position thus: (AC  pp. 222-23)

“… The words ‘it shall be lawful’ are not   equivocal.  They  are  plain  and  unambiguous.  They  are  words  merely   making  that  legal  and  possible  which   there  would  otherwise  be  no  right  or   authority to do. They confer a faculty or   power, and they do not of themselves do  more than confer a faculty or power. But   there may be something in the nature of   the  thing  empowered  to  be  done,  something in the object for which it is to   be  done,  something  in  the  conditions   under which it is to be done, something  in the title of the person or persons for   whose  benefit  the  power  is  to  be  exercised, which may couple the power  

10

Page 11

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

with a duty, and make it the duty of the  person in whom the power is reposed, to  exercise that power when called upon to   do so.”

54. Applying the tests which emerge from the  above cases to Section 357, it  appears to us   that  the  provision  confers  a  power  coupled  with a duty on the courts to apply its mind to   the  question  of  awarding  compensation  in   every criminal case. We say so because in the  background  and  context  in  which  it  was   introduced, the power to award compensation  was intended to reassure the victim that he or   she  is  not  forgotten  in  the  criminal  justice  system. The victim would remain forgotten in  the  criminal  justice  system  if  despite  the   legislature  having  gone  so  far  as  to  enact   specific  provisions  relating  to  victim  compensation,  courts  choose  to  ignore  the  provisions  altogether  and  do  not  even  apply   their mind to the question of compensation. It   follows  that  unless  Section  357  is  read  to  confer  an  obligation  on  the  courts  to  apply   their mind to the question of compensation, it   would  defeat  the  very  object  behind  the   introduction of the provision. 58. This  Court  has  through  a  line  of  cases  beginning with  Hari  Singh case held that the  power  to  award  compensation  under  Section  357 is not ancillary to other sentences but in   addition  thereto.  It  would  necessarily  follow  that the court has a duty to apply its mind to  the question of awarding compensation under   Section 357 too. Reference may also be made  to the decision of this Court in  State of A.P. v.  Polamala Raju  [(2000)  7  SCC 75 :  2000 SCC  (Cri) 1284] wherein a three-Judge Bench of this   Court set aside a judgment of the High Court   for non-application of mind to the question of   sentencing.  In  that  case,  this  Court   reprimanded the High Court for having reduced  the sentence of the accused convicted under   Section 376 IPC from 10 years’ imprisonment  to 5 years without  recording any reasons for   the  same.  This  Court  said:  (SCC  pp.  78-79,   paras 9 & 11)

“9. We are of the considered opinion that   it is an obligation of the sentencing court   

11

Page 12

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

to  consider  all  relevant  facts  and  circumstances bearing on the question of   sentence  and  impose  a  sentence  commensurate  with  the  gravity  of  the   offence. …

* * * 11. To say the least, the order contains   no  reasons,  much  less  ‘special  or   adequate  reasons’.  The  sentence  has  been  reduced  in  a  rather  mechanical   manner  without  proper  application  of   mind.”

61. Section 357 Cr.PC confers a duty on the  court  to  apply  its  mind  to  the  question  of   compensation  in  every  criminal  case.  It   necessarily follows that the court must disclose  that it has applied its mind to this question in   every criminal case. In Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari  Batra [(2010) 9 SCC 486 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)  842] this  Court  held  that  the  disclosure  of   application  of  mind  is  best  demonstrated  by   recording  reasons  in  support  of  the  order  or   conclusion. The Court observed: (SCC p. 495,   paras 28-30)

“28. …  There  is  nothing  like  a  power   without any limits or constraints. That is   so even when a court or other authority   may  be  vested  with  wide  discretionary  power,  for  even  discretion  has  to  be  exercised only along well recognised and   sound  juristic  principles  with  a  view to   promoting  fairness,  inducing  transparency and aiding equity. 29. What  then  are  the  safeguards  against  an arbitrary exercise of  power?  The  first  and  the  most  effective  check   against  any  such  exercise  is  the  well- recognised legal principle that orders can  be  made  only  after  due  and  proper  application of mind. Application of mind  brings  reasonableness  not  only  to  the  exercise  of  power  but  to  the  ultimate   conclusion  also.  Application  of  mind  in  turn is best demonstrated by disclosure   of  the  mind.  And  disclosure  is  best   demonstrated  by  recording  reasons  in   support of the order or conclusion  .   

12

Page 13

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

30. Recording of reasons in cases where  the order is subject to further appeal is   very important  from yet another angle.   An appellate court or the authority ought  to have the advantage of examining the  reasons that prevailed with the court or   the  authority  making  the  order.   Conversely,  absence  of  reasons  in  an  appealable order deprives the appellate  court or the authority of that advantage  and casts an onerous responsibility upon  it  to  examine  and  determine  the  question on its own  .”   

(emphasis supplied) 66. To sum up: 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.”

14. In  Suresh and Anr.  vs.  State of  Haryana,  Criminal  Appeal  

No.420/2012 decided on 28th November, 2014, it was observed:-

“14.     We are of the view that it is the duty of   the Courts, on taking cognizance of a criminal   

13

Page 14

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

offence, to ascertain whether there is tangible  material to show commission of crime, whether  the  victim  is  identifiable  and  whether  the  victim  of  crime  needs  immediate  financial   relief.  On being satisfied on an application or   on its  own motion,  the Court ought to direct   grant of interim compensation, subject to final   compensation  being  determined  later.   Such   duty  continues  at  every  stage  of  a  criminal   case  where  compensation  ought  to  be  given  and  has  not  been  given,  irrespective  of  the  application by the victim.   At the stage of final   hearing it is obligatory on the part of the Court   to advert to the provision and record a finding   whether a case for grant of compensation has  been made out and, if  so,  who is entitled to   compensation and how much.  Award of such  compensation  can  be  interim.   Gravity  of   offence and  need of  victim are  some of  the   guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from  such other factors as may be found relevant in   the  facts  and  circumstances  of  an  individual   case.   We are also of  the view that  there is   need to consider upward revision in the scale  for  compensation  and  pending  such  consideration to adopt the scale notified by the  State of Kerala in its scheme, unless the scale   awarded by any other State or Union Territory   is  higher.   The  States  of  Andhra  Pradesh,   Madhya  Pradesh,  Meghalaya  and  Telangana  are directed to notify their schemes within one  month from receipt of a copy of this order.  We   also  direct  that  a  copy  of  this  judgment  be   forwarded to National Judicial Academy so that   all  judicial  officers  in  the  country  can  be  imparted  requisite  training  to  make  the  provision operative and meaningful.”

15.      In K.A. Abbas H.S.A. vs.  Sabu Joseph and anr.3, it  was observed:-

“26. From the above line of cases, it becomes   very  clear,  that,  a  sentence of  imprisonment   can  be  granted  for  default  in  payment  of   compensation  awarded  under  Section  357(3)   CrPC. The whole purpose of the provision is to   accommodate  the  interests  of  the  victims  in   

3 (2010) 6 SCC 230

14

Page 15

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

the  criminal  justice  system.  Sometimes  the  situation  becomes  such  that  there  is  no  purpose  served  by  keeping  a  person  behind  bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an  amount  of  compensation  to  the  victim  or  affected  party  can  ensure  delivery  of  total   justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation   is  sometimes  in  lieu  of  sending  a  person  behind  bars  or  in  addition  to  a  very  light   sentence of imprisonment. Hence on default of   payment of this  compensation, there must be  a  just  recourse.  Not  imposing  a  sentence  of   imprisonment  would  mean  allowing  the  accused  to  get  away  without  paying  the  compensation and imposing another fine would   be  impractical  as  it  would  mean  imposing  a   fine upon another fine and therefore would not   ensure  proper  enforcement  of  the  order  of   compensation.  While  passing  an  order  under   Section 357(3), it is imperative for the courts   to look at the ability and the capacity of the   accused to pay the same amount as has been  laid down by the cases above, otherwise the   very  purpose  of  granting  an  order  of   compensation would stand defeated.”

16. In the present case, in the absence of any evidence about the  

medical expenses, loss of earning etc. and the financial capacity of the  

accused, we are of the view that the appellant needs to be paid a sum  

of  Rs.50,000/-  as  compensation  under  Section  357(3)  within  two  

months  by  the  surviving  respondents.   In  default  the  surviving-

respondents  will  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  three  months.  

Since  compensation  is  being directed to  be  paid,  we set  aside the  

sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/-.

15

Page 16

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2015 @SLP (Crl.) No.1491 of 2012

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in above terms.

………………………………………………J.   (T.S. THAKUR)

………………………………………………J.           (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 16, 2015

16