The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a Lower Court cannot quantify and fix the amount of compensation to the victim under Section 357 A of the Indian Penal Code, it can only recommend payment of compensation under the same section.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ananda Sen heard a petition filed by Sumit Kumar Shaw and others under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by part of the order dated 20th January 2020, passed by Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1987 of 2019.
The fact of the case is petitioners are accused of Lower Bazar Police Station Case No.411 of 2018 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners approached the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, praying for grant of anticipatory bail.
Judicial Commissioner, heard the petitioners and granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to them. While granting anticipatory bail, Judicial Commissioner directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs 1 lakh collectively, in favour of the victim, as ad-interim victim compensation. The petitioners are aggrieved by this part of the order which directs them to pay the victim compensation.
Advocate Indrajit Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Judicial Commissioner has committed a grave error in granting victim compensation at the stage of grant of bail by directing the petitioners to pay the amount of Rs 1 lakh. He submitted that at the stage of bail, these petitioners are merely an accused.
As there is a presumption of innocence in their favour, the petitioners could not have been directed to compensate the informant/victim. It is his submission that without giving a concrete finding that the petitioners are guilty of the offence, no order could have been passed against them to compensate the informant/victim.
As per the petitioners this finding of guilt can only be arrived at, after completion of the trial and not before that. Thus, he contended that without holding the petitioners guilty (after conclusion of a proper trial), the Court could not have ordered, nor could have directed the petitioners to compensate the victim/informant. He submitted that as per Section 357 A of the Code, the Court does not have any power to direct payment of victim compensation. As per his submission, the Court is only a recommending authority, and could not have fixed the quantum of compensation.
Reliance were made on (2008) 12 SCC 675 [State of Uttar Pradesh & Another versus UP Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangarsh Samiti & Others] and 2020 (2) JBCJ 640 (HC) [Jitendra Oraon versus The State of Jharkhand].
Advocate Soumitra Baroi, appearing on behalf of the victim, submitted that from the perusal of the order dated 20.01.2020, it would appear that the petitioners have voluntarily made a submission before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, that they are ready to compensate the informant and, therefore, Court has as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, had directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) collectively in favour of the victim as ad-interim victim compensation without being prejudiced to their defence. He submitted that as prima facie, from the perusal of the First Information Report, it appeared that inspite of receipt of sale proceeds from the informant, due to the illegal acts of the petitioners, the victim had to suffer monetary loss due to non-supply of the No Objection Certificate within time.
The victim as a result of which, could not get the insurance claim, due to which he could not even get the car repaired. The illegal act of the petitioners has caused further loss of income to the informant, which amounts to cheating. So, as per him, the Court below has rightly directed the petitioners to pay victim compensation to the informant/victim.
Counsel P.A.S. Pati, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the Court below has got jurisdiction to direct payment of victim compensation at any stage of a criminal proceeding. He further submitted that even independent of Section 357 A of the Code, the Court has power to grant any relief and pass any order as a condition of bail. The petitioners volunteered to compensate the victim/informant, thus, now they cannot backtrack and challenge the part of the order by which the Court has directed payment of victim compensation.
After hearing the submission from all the parties the court held,
”Only after conviction, it is proved that he is the person, who has perpetrated the crime against the victim. Thus, when it is proved that the said accused has committed a crime against the victim, the victim is also entitled to be compensated by the said convict. When a person is an accused and the Court is not sure as to whether he has committed the offence or not, in that situation, when there is uncertainty, the accused cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. A person, who has not committed the crime, by no stretch of imagination, can be directed to pay compensation. At a stage of hearing of bail plea, the guilt of the accused is not proved or established. What is established at that stage, is the identity of the victim and the fact that the said victim has suffered some loss and needs rehabilitation. Thus, at that stage, the victim qualifies to be compensated, but, the said compensation cannot be from the accused, whose guilt is yet to be proved.”
“As per Section 357A of the Code and the Scheme, even if the accused is not identified or he is discharged or acquitted, the victim is entitled to get compensation from the fund, which is created by the State. In other words, it is the State, who has to compensate the victim. The State being the paramount protector of the life and liberty of each and every citizen, has some responsibility towards them. Even if the accused is acquitted or discharged or even if the accused is not identified, it is the duty of the State to protect its citizens and to rehabilitate them if they suffer loss and injury arising out of a crime. When these crimes are heinous and affects the social fabric, and victim is downtrodden and belongs from the lower strata of the society, the responsibility of the State increases manifolds. Thus, it is the State who has to compensate the victim of these type of crimes, irrespective of the fact whether the accused has been identified or not or whether the accused has been discharged/acquitted. This is the reason as to why, in terms of Section 357A of the Code, the State is saddled with the liability to compensate and rehabilitate the victim and not the accused, whose guilt is yet to be proved.”
Moreover it was considered by the High Court whether at the stage of grant of bail, the Court can direct payment or recommend victim compensation, is concerned, the Court being a recommending authority, as per Section 357A, can only recommend. In view of Section 357A(6), any interim relief can be granted to the victim. This interim relief can also be by way of interim victim compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh & Another versus State of Haryana reported in (2015) 2 SCC 227 has held that at any stage of the trial victim compensation can be paid. Once the victim is identified, there is no embargo in paying victim compensation even at the stage of consideration of bail of the accused, which is an interlocutory phase. If the Court feels that the victim needs interim relief, the Court can very well recommend for payment of victim compensation in terms of Section 357A of the Code.
The Court observed,
“ The bail was granted on merits after considering the relevant considerations, which is necessary to consider for grant of bail. Just because there is some submission made at the time of hearing, that the accused are ready to pay victim compensation, the Court has imposed a condition that the accused jointly will pay Rs.1,00,000/- as victim compensation to the complainant / informant. As held earlier, in this judgment, that an accused cannot be saddled with payment of victim compensation, as the same is not in consonance with Section 357A nor with the Scheme, the Court could not have directed the petitioners to pay the said amount as victim compensation”.
Also Read: Supreme Court says police brutality matter of great concern
Therefore in light of those facts the High Court ruled,
“that a Court cannot quantify and fix the amount of victim compensation under Section 357 A of the Code. As per the aforesaid provision of law, the Court can only recommend payment of compensation, which has to be quantified after adjudging the adequacy of the same, by the State or District Legal Services Authority after a proper enquiry. Further, it is held that a Court, at any stage of trial, even at the stage of grant of bail, or even after conclusion of trial, can recommend payment of victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code. Further, I hold that the amount of victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code has to be paid from the fund, so created in terms of the Scheme, by the State only and an accused cannot be directed to pay victim compensation.”