Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 519
Smt. Manjusha Namjoshi, J.
Yashpal Singh v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 1346 of 2005 (J); Decided on 18.4.2006. *
R.K. Nanhoriya for applicant; Sudeep Deb, Panel Lawyer for State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 325 -- evidence of victim duly corroborated by eye witnesses and medical evidence -- offence proved. [Para 4
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 357 -- award of compensation to victim -- must be reasonable -- what is reasonable depends upon facts and circumstances of each case -- quantum may be determined taking into account nature of crime, justness of claim and ability of accused to pay the same. AIR 1988 SC 2127 followed. [Para 5
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 357 (1) (3) -- compensation under -- is not awarded by way of damages -- fracture sustained on lower end of tibia -- not complicated one -- compensation of Rs.1,000/- is sufficient. [Paras 6 & 8
(4) Words and Phrases -- word "compensation" -- is derived from latin word compensure -- meaning weigh together or balance -- term etymologically suggests image of balancing one thing against another - its primary signification is equivalance -- secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. [Para 6
(5) Words and Phrases -- word damages -- constitute sum of money claimed or adjudged in money of something lost or withheld. [Para 7
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 325 && vkgr dklk{; lE;d~ :i ls izR;{kn’khZ lk{khx.k rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V && vijk/k lkfcrA ¼iSjk 4
¼2½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 357 && vkgr dks izfrdj dk vf/kfu.kZ; && ;qfDr;qDr gksuk pkfg, && ;qfDr;qDr D;k gS ;g izR;sd ekeys ds rF; vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gS && vijk/k dh izd`fr] nkos dk vkSfpR; rFkk mls lank; djus dh vfHk;qDr dh {kerk dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, ek=k vo/kkfjr dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 2127 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5
¼3½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 357 ¼1½ ¼3½ && ds v/khu izfrdj && uqdlkuh ds :i esa iznku ugha fd;k tkrk && vartZaf?kdk ds fupys fljs ij vfLFk&Hkax gqvk && ;g tfVy ugha gS && :- 1]000@& dk izfrdj i;kZIr gSA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 8
¼4½ ‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn izfrdj && ysfVu ‘‘kCn dEisuL;ksj ls O;qRiUu gqvk gS && vFkZ ^lkFk&lkFk rksyuk* rFkk ^larqfyr djuk* gS && "kChn dk O;qRiRrh; lq>ko ,d oLrq dk nwljh oLrq ds fo:) larqfyr djus dk gS && bldk izkFkfed vFkZ rqY;rk gS && xkS.k vkSj vf/kd lkekU; vFkZ gS lerqY; ds :i esa dqN fn;k tkuk ;k izkIr djukA ¼iSjk 6
¼5½ ‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^uqdlkuh* && nkok dh xbZ /ku jkf’k vFkok dqN [kksus vFkok fo/kkfjr dks /ku esa U;k;fu.khZr fd;k tkuk gSA ¼iSjk 7q
1. This revision is under section 397 read with section 401, CrPC.
2. The accused/applicant Yashpal Singh, along with two other accused, was prosecuted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 2811/95 parties being State v. Ramesh, Yashpal and Sharad. By its judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 the trial Court convicted the applicant under section 325 IPC, to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur by its judgment dated 15.7.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.48/2004 parties being Yashpal v. State upheld the conviction of the applicant. As regards sentence part the appellate Court suspended the sentence but granted benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In addition to it the Court ordered the accused to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- under section 357 CrPC to Yogesh Bhatia.
3. Parties head, record perused.
4. The evidence on record of Shamlal (PW 1), Ajay Vinodia (PW 2), Yogesh (PW 3) and Ajay (PW 4) clearly reveals that it was Yashpal who caused grievous injury to Yogesh. The medical evidence of Dr. Thakur (PW 5) and Dr. Khan (PW 6) also corroborate the evidence of the victim. Therefore, both the Courts below were right in convicting the accused.
5. The next question put forward before this Court is about compensation under section 357 CrPC. The appellate Court has awarded compensation of Rs.7,500/- to be paid to the victim Yogesh. The purpose of compensating the victim as per the provision of section 357 CrPC cannot be disputed. In case of Hari Kishan and State of Hariyana v. Sukhbir Singh [AIR 1988 SC 2127] it was held that payment by way oft compensation must, however be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the fact and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and ability of accused to pay it.
6. Section 357 (1) and (3) CrPC provides power to award compensation to victim of the offence. The nature of fracture sustained by Yogesh was on lower end of tibia. That fracture was not a complicated one. The appellate Court was exercising powers under section 357 CrPC and not under the law of tort where compensation by way of damages can be awarded. The word compensation is derived from the latin word 'compensure' meaning 'weigh together' or 'balance'. The term 'damages' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss of injury sustained the value estimated in mony of something lost or withheld. Thus, the term 'compensation' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another, its primary signification is equivalance, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of 'full compensation'.
7. In the present case the quarrel started instantly and the accused gave a lathi blow to the victim, the accused is agriculturies. Hence, looking to the circumstances of the case, nature of offence and circumstances under which offence was committed the compenation awarded is unreasonable and cannot be said to be moderate and balanced to the act committed by the accused.
8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction part of the judgment is maintained but the compensation part of the order is modified and it is ordered that the applicant/accused shall pay al compensation of Rs.One thousand (Rs.1,000/-) to the victim Yogesh Bhatia s/o Sirendra Mohan Bhatia of Bedinagar, Gurdeo Colony, P.S. Gadha, Jabalpur. The amount of compensation should be deposited forthwith as the case is of 198
