Today, On 6th June, The Supreme Court ruled that compensation to victims in criminal cases aims to rehabilitate those harmed and cannot justify reducing the accused’s sentence. The Court emphasized that the payment’s primary purpose is to address the victim’s loss or injury, not to mitigate the offender’s punishment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court warned that allowing payment of compensation to be a factor in reducing criminal sentences would have a “catastrophic” impact on the administration of the criminal justice system.
The purpose of compensation in criminal cases is to rehabilitate victims who suffered loss or harm from the offense, not to provide a means for accused individuals to “buy their way out of justice.” The court cautioned that such a practice would undermine the very purpose of criminal proceedings, as it would enable criminals with sufficient funds to effectively purchase leniency, defeating the principles of the justice system.
Read Also: Supreme Court Intervenes to Enhance Compensation for Hit-and-Run Victims
Under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), courts empowered to order the payment of compensation to victims when delivering a judgment of conviction. This provision based on the principles of victimology, which acknowledges the unfortunate reality that victims are often overlooked within the criminal justice system.
As explained by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, the idea of compensation rooted in the recognition that victims have suffered significant losses or harm as a result of the criminal offense. This mechanism aims to provide a means of rehabilitation and restoration for those impacted by the crime, rather than leaving them further marginalized by the criminal justice process.
The bench stated,
“Payment of victim compensation should not be used as a basis for reducing the sentence imposed on the accused. Victim compensation is not a punitive measure but a restitutive one, and thus, it does not affect the punitive nature of the sentence,”
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) aims to reassure the victim that they are an integral part of the criminal justice system.
The court noted,
“It is a constructive approach to crimes, based on the understanding that simply punishing the offender may not provide comfort to the victim or their family,”
The bench emphasized,
“As such, when determining the compensation to be paid to a victim, the court should only consider the convict’s ability to pay and not the imposed sentence. In criminal proceedings, courts should not confuse sentencing with victim compensation,”
The Supreme Court made this observation during the hearing of a plea by Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya, who challenged a Gujarat High Court order. The High Court reduced the five-year sentences of two men to four years in a criminal case and further stated that the convicts would not need to serve the four-year sentence if they paid Rs 2.50 lakh to the victim.
The Supreme Court observed that 12 years had passed since the incident, and the convicts had already paid Rs 5 lakh.
Read Also: Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe into 15-Year Land Compensation Corruption in Noida
The bench stated,
“We do not find it appropriate to require them to serve an additional four-year sentence.”
However, the court added,
“We instruct each respondent to deposit an additional sum of Rs 5 lakh, totalling Rs 10 lakh, on top of what has already been paid to the trial court.”
Supreme Court directed that while courts should indeed consider the impact on victims and ensure they are adequately compensated, this consideration should be separate from the sentencing process. The judgment called for a balanced approach where victim compensation and criminal sentencing are treated as distinct yet complementary aspects of the justice system.