The Delhi High Court set aside earlier guidelines issued to trial courts regarding victim compensation. It ruled that requiring the accused or convict to submit an affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities violates constitutional and statutory rights. The judgment emphasizes the need to balance victims’ rights with the legal protections afforded to the accused. This decision could impact the approach trial courts take in compensation-related matters.
New Delhi: A five-judge bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the guidelines issued by a three-judge bench in 2020 regarding the assessment and payment of victim compensation by trial courts under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This section grants trial courts the authority to award compensation to crime victims. In the case of Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi, the High Court previously directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to submit Victim Impact Reports (VIRs) to trial courts after the conviction of an accused.
However, the preparation of VIRs was causing delays in sentencing, which prevented convicts from appealing or applying for bail during that period. In their ruling, Justices Rekha Palli, Prathiba M Singh, Subramonium Prasad, Saurabh Banerjee, and Manoj Jain clarified that the DSLSA has no role in determining victim compensation under Section 357 CrPC, emphasizing that the trial court alone is responsible for calculating and awarding such compensation.
The Court stated,
“The directions requiring the DSLSA to conduct a summary inquiry for determination of victim compensation after conviction of the accused would, in our view, amount to clothing the DSLSA with a power which the legislature does not envisage.”
Despite setting aside the 2020 guidelines, the larger bench urged trial courts to adopt a victim-centric approach and indicated that they could seek assistance from the DSLSA as needed.
In determining compensation under Section 357 CrPC, the trial court may consider the income and assets of the accused, among other factors.
The Court added that information could be gathered from the investigating officer or prosecuting agency, as well as the accused, who should not be compelled to make any statements under oath.
The judges noted that the guidelines resulted in significant delays in sentencing, causing convicts in Delhi to remain in custody while awaiting sentencing orders.
Agreeing with the argument that the mandatory steps in the guidelines violated the accused’s legal and fundamental right to a speedy trial. They remarked,
“This prolonged detention of the accused… would certainly be unjust, unfair and unreasonable,”
The Court also addressed the concern that requiring an accused to submit an affidavit detailing their assets and income would infringe on their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It clarified that an accused cannot be compelled to make a statement on oath during the trial, but noted that Article 20(3) applies only to material that could lead to self-incrimination.
The judges concluded that while seeking information about the accused’s financial status could potentially be used by other investigative agencies, such requests should not violate the accused’s constitutional rights.
Thus, they ruled that the direction for an accused to furnish an affidavit detailing their assets and liabilities would violate both constitutional and statutory rights.
The appellants represented by advocates Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna, and Anisha Rastogi, while Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa served as Amicus Curiae. Additional representatives included advocates for the DSLSA and the State, who also participated in the proceedings.
Case Title: Saif Ali @ Sohan Vs. The State GNCT of Delhi