Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 357 — Compensation — Nature — Distinct from sentence
Paras 20, 23–25
Compensation awarded under Section 357 CrPC is restitutory and victim-centric in nature. It is in addition to punishment and operates in a distinct field from sentencing. The provision is intended to reassure the victim and provide reparation for loss or injury, and has no bearing on the punitive sentence imposed upon the accused.
Compensation — Cannot substitute or dilute sentence
Paras 21, 23, 26
Payment of compensation cannot be used as a ground to reduce, substitute, or avoid imprisonment. The High Court committed an error in permitting the accused to escape the remainder of sentence upon payment of compensation. Sentencing and compensation are independent, and one cannot be varied on account of the other.
Sentencing vs compensation — Distinction — Punitive vs restitutory
Paras 23–25
Sentencing is punitive in nature, aimed at deterrence and punishment of the offender, whereas compensation is reparative, aimed at addressing the loss suffered by the victim. The two concepts stand on completely different footing and cannot be conflated.
Victimology — Object of compensation
Paras 22–24
The concept of compensation is rooted in victimology, recognising that victims are often the most neglected participants in the criminal justice system. Compensation seeks to provide solace and rehabilitation for the victim and their family, though it cannot undo the harm caused.
Compensation — Determination — Relevant considerations
Paras 24–25
The quantum of compensation must be determined with reference to the loss or injury suffered by the victim, and the capacity of the accused to pay. It is unrelated to the quantum of sentence imposed.
Error of High Court — Conditional reduction of sentence
Para 21
The High Court erred in law in directing that upon payment of ₹5 lakhs compensation, the accused need not undergo the remaining sentence. Such a direction amounts to an impermissible substitution of sentence by compensation.
Compensation in lieu of sentence — Impermissibility — Consequence
Para 26
If compensation is treated as a substitute for punishment, it would lead to a situation where offenders with financial means could buy their way out of imprisonment, thereby undermining the criminal justice system.
Relief — Modification — Enhancement of compensation
Para 28
Considering lapse of time and the fact that compensation had already been deposited, the Supreme Court, while correcting the legal error, directed the accused to pay additional compensation of ₹5 lakhs each, resulting in a total compensation of ₹15 lakhs payable to the victim.
Result
Paras 28–29
Impugned order modified. Direction permitting substitution of sentence by compensation set aside. Instead, enhanced compensation ordered. Appeals disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment