Section 357A- Court's Role Is Only Recommendatory, Court Cannot Fix Any Quantum Of Compensation To Victim: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday made significant observations with respect to payment of victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Single Bench of Justice Ananda Sen has held that: The role of the Court is recommendatory in nature and it cannot fix any quantum of victim compensation nor can direct the authority to make payment of the same to the victim while exercising jurisdiction under Section 357A of CrPC.Court can recommend payment of victim compensation by way of interim measure at any stage of the proceeding, including at the stage of considering bail application.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, the accused cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. The observation was made while deciding a criminal miscellaneous petition filed against an order of Judicial Commissioner which granted bail to the Petitioners-accused but directed them to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh collectively, in favour of the informant/victim, as ad-interim victim compensation. Arguments The petitioners had argued that the Judicial Commissioner has committed a grave error in granting victim compensation at the stage of grant of bail. It was submitted that at the stage of bail, the Petitioners are merely an accused. As there is a presumption of innocence in their favour, they could not have been directed to compensate the informant/victim. The State on the other hand submitted that the Court below has got jurisdiction to direct payment of victim compensation at any stage of a criminal proceeding. It was submitted that even independent of Section 357A of the Code, the Court has power to grant any relief and pass any order as a condition of bail. Findings In its order, the Single Judge considered the following questions: Whether Court can direct an accused to pay victim compensation at the time of granting bail or at any stage prior to conclusion of the trial? The Single Judge noted that 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. It held, "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." The Bench was of the opinion that compensation is ordered to be paid by a Court only after a finding is arrived that the person, directed to pay compensation, has caused any injury by committing a wrong or has committed a breach of a legal obligation, be it statutory or contractual. "To direct an accused to pay any compensation or victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code at the stage of bail by terming it as a condition of bail also may amount to prejudging the guilt of an accused and such a course of action runs completely contrary to the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, i.e., presumption of innocence until proven guilty," the Bench held. It added, "When a First Information Report is lodged with an allegation made against any person, to have committed the crime, the said allegation is a mere accusation. Making accusation against a person does not make him guilty of an offence. The accusation against the said person has to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. Till the accusation/allegation is not established beyond all reasonable doubts, the person remains as an accused. The presumption remains in favour of the accused that he is innocent. Only when the Court holds the accused guilty of the crime, then only there is confirmation that the accused is guilty of the offence. This is done only after conclusion of the trial, when the judgment is pronounced." Payment of compensation by State The Court made it clear that there is no embargo in paying victim compensation even at the stage of consideration of bail of the accused, which is an interlocutory phase. However, it is the State, who has to compensate the victim. Reliance was placed on Suresh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227. The order stated, "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...

Section 357A- Court's Role Is Only Recommendatory, Court Cannot Fix Any Quantum Of Compensation To Victim: Jharkhand High Court

Akshita Saxena

Tags