Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2481-2482 of 2024, (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 2653-2654 of 2016)
Decided On : 09-05-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357 – Victim compensation – Victims are the worst sufferers – Theory of Victimology seeks to redress the same and underscores importance for criminal justice administration system to take into consideration effect of offence on victim's family even though human life cannot be restored but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace – Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration or a ground for reducing sentence imposed upon accused as victim compensation is not a punitive measure and only restitutory in nature – Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is intended to reassure victim that he/she is not forgotten in criminal justice system – It is a constructive approach to crimes based on premise that mere punishment of offender may not give solace to victim or its family. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 and 325 – Gujarat Police Act, 1951 – Section 135 – Victim compensation – Grievous hurt – Sentence of five years’ imprisonment as imposed by trial court came to be reduced to four years – High Court further held that if amount of Rs 2.50 lakh is paid by each of two respondents before it, then respondents need not undergo even four years’ of sentence as reduced by High Court – When deciding compensation which is to be paid to a victim, only factor that court may take into consideration is convict’s capacity to pay compensation and not sentence that has been imposed – In criminal proceedings courts should not conflate sentence with compensation to victims – Sentences such as imprisonment and / or fine are imposed independently of any victim compensation and two stand on a completely different footing, either of them cannot vary other – Where an accused is directed to pay compensation to victims, same is not meant as punishment or atonement of convict but rather as a step towards reparation to victims who have suffered from offence committed by convict – If payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then same will have catastrophic effect on criminal justice administration – It will result in criminals with a purse full of money to buy their way out of justice, defeating very purpose of criminal proceedings – Keeping in mind that a period of twelve years has elapsed and when respondents (original convicts) have already deposited amount of Rs 5 lakh, Court not inclined to direct respondents to undergo further sentence of four years – However, respondents directed to deposit further sum of Rs 5 lakh, i.e. in all Rs 10 lakh, in addition to what they have already deposited before trial court. (Paras 11, 25, 26 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Two appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 906 of 2014 and 1330 of 2014 respectively came to be preferred by appellant herein, one for enhancement of sentence and connected appeal against order of acquittal so far as the original accused Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned. Respondents as original convicts also preferred Criminal Appeal Nos 723 of 2014 and 733 of 2014 respectively against the order of conviction and sentence. Only question that falls for consideration is whether procedure adopted by High Court, could be said to be in accordance with law.
Findings of Court:
Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is intended to reassure victim that he/she is not forgotten in criminal justice system. It is a constructive approach to crimes based on premise that mere punishment of offender may not give solace to the victim or its family.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
The statement is a paraphrased summary of the principles and reasoning expressed in the judgment, rather than a direct quote from the judgment. It reflects the court’s discussion on the importance of victim compensation and the underlying philosophy of victimology as explained in the judgment (!) .
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellant before this Court is the original first informant (complainant). The appellant lodged a First Information Report No I-179/2012 at the Surendranagar City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 323, 325, 506(2), 384 of the Indian Penal Code1[“IPC”] and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The FIR was lodged in all against five accused persons.
4. The respondents before this Court are the original accused Nos 1 and 2 respectively. Out of the five accused persons, two were named in the FIR, whereas three were not named. The respondents herein ultimately were put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 329, 384, 387, 427, 506(2), 323 and 325 respectively of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
5. The respondents herein came to be convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs 5,000/- each. The trial court also convicted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, they came to be sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs 1,000/-.
6. The original accused Nos 3, 4, and 5, who were not named in the FIR came to be acquitted by the trial court.
7. Against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, the respondents herein went in appeal before the High Court.
8. The two captioned appeals before this Court originate from Criminal Appeal (For Enhancement) No 906 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No 1330 of 2014 decided by the High Court.
9. These two appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos 906 of 2014 and 1330 of 2014 respectively came to be preferred by the appellant herein, one for enhancement of sentence and the connected appeal against the order of acquittal so far as the original accused Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that the respondents as original convicts also preferred Criminal Appeal Nos 723 of 2014 and 733 of 2014 respectively against the order of conviction and sentence.
10. The High Court heard in all five appeals, two filed by the appellant herein, two filed by the respondents and the fifth appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat. The acquittal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat was against the original accused Nos 3 to 5. The High Court disposed of all the five appeals by a common judgment. The operative part of the judgment and order passed by the High Court reads thus:
“(a) The impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.14/2013 is modified only to the extent that sentence imposed upon both original accused no.1 & 2 for conviction u/s.325 IPC is reduced from Five Years to Four Years, without disturbing the order regarding fine and default sentence. Rest of the impugned judgment and order remains unaltered.
(b) Considering the principle rendered by Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (6) SCC 770 and the request made by learned counsel Mr. Hriday Buch that both Rs.2.50 lacs each, totalling Rs.5.00 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs only), to the victim under the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C., we do not find any reasons in the facts and circumstances of the case for denying the said benefit in favour of both accused no.1 & 2.
(c) Accordingly, while granting benefit of the judgment rendered in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad’s case (supra) to original accused no.1 & 2, it is directed that
Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the crime, ensuring adequate deterrence while avoiding undue sympathy and maintaining public confidence in justice.
Section 357A of the Code is extracted here Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim....
Victims of crimes are entitled to compensation under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code, regardless of when the crime occurred, reflecting the duty of courts to ensure justice for victims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case in altering the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324/....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
