IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M. JEYAPAUL, SNEH PRASHAR, JJ.
Munni Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Another - Respondents
CRR No. 1953 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2016
Compensation - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 357
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the deceased, sought compensation for the murder of her husband. The trial court imposed a sentence of fine along with imprisonment for the accused. The petitioner appealed for compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had imposed a fine as part of the sentence, making the petitioner ineligible for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. However, the trial court recommended invoking Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. for determining compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was eligible for compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. despite the imposition of a fine as part of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 357(1) and 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that compensation can only be awarded out of the fine amount when a court imposes a sentence of fine. It also highlighted the duty of the court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court's recommendation to determine compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
M. Jeyapaul, J.
1. Petitioner Munni Devi is the wife of deceased Bijender Singh who was murdered. The case of murder was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Accused Parveen who faced the trial was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
2. The present revision is filed by the wife of the deceased praying for award of compensation to the dependents of deceased Bijender Singh. The observation made by the trial Judge was that the sentence awarded to convict Parveen includes sentence of fine. Therefore, no compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. can be granted to the persons entitled to recover damages from the convict for loss suffered because of the death of Bijender Singh. But the fact remains that the trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case recommended invoking the provisions under Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. that the District Legal Services, Gurgaon may determine the compensation to be awarded under the Victim Compensation Scheme to the dependents of deceased Bijender Singh.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Section 357(1), 357(3) and Section 357A Cr.P.C., in the background of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 1036, and Jage am and others vs. State of Haryana, 2015(1) RCR (Criminal) 802, submitted that imposition of fine as part of the sentence does not debar the Sessions Judge under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to grant compensation.
4. Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
“357. Order to pay compensation-
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied –
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, (13 of 1855) entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bonafide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal.
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.”
5. A bare reading of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.