Compensation To Victim Not Substitute For Punishment In Grave Offences : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has deprecated the trend amongst certain High Courts to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in heinous offences by increasing the amount of compensation payable to the victim.The Court said that such a practice will give a wrong message that accused can get away from punishment by paying a monetary compensation."Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment," the Court said. The Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had reduced the sentence of two attempt to murder convicts to the two months they had already served, in exchange for an enhanced fine of ₹1 lakh.“We have observed a trend amongst various High Courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, reasoning that it might send “a wrong message to society that the offenders/accused persons can absolve themselves from their liability by merely paying a monetary consideration.” The Court has culled out certain basic factors, which are to be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with the imposition of a sentence. The said factors are enunciated below: "A. Proportionality: Adherence to the principle of “just deserts” ought to be the primary duty of the courts. There should be proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment awarded, keeping in consideration the gravity of the offence. B. Consideration to Facts and Circumstances: Due consideration must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial court. C. Impact on Society: While imposing sentences, the courts shall bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part) and erodes public trust. The sentence should be adequate to maintain the public trust in law and administration, however, caution should also be taken, and the Court shall not be swayed by the outrage or emotions of the public and must decide the question independently. D. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The courts, while deciding the sentence or modifying the sentence, must weigh the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and while doing so, the court must strike a fair balance between the aggravating and the mitigating factors."Background The case relates to the two accused, who attacked the victim with knives, inflicting multiple life-threatening stab wounds to his chest and abdomen. Convicted in 2013 under Sections 307, 326, and 324 IPC, they were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Sessions Court. However, the Madras High Court modified the sentence. While affirming the conviction, the High Court reduced the imprisonment to the two months already served and increased the total fine to ₹1,00,000, citing the 10-year gap since the incident and the victim's unrelated murder in 2017. Against the High Court's decision, the Appellant, the wife of the victim, moved to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bishnoi held that monetary relief to the victim cannot substitute penal consequences. “Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot merely be “purchased by money””, the court said. Reference was given to the case of Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Another, where the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence of the accused in lieu of payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to the victim for medical treatment. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The accused persons were directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.HeadnoteCriminal Law — Sentencing Policy — Principle of Proportionality — Modification of Sentence to "Period Already Undergone" — Grounds of Lapse of Time and Victim Compensation — Held: The High Court erred in reducing the sentence of the Private Respondents from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone (two months) based on the lapse of time (10.5 years) and the willingness of the accused to pay compensation - Punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime and the manner of its commission to maintain public confidence in the efficacy of law - Undue sympathy in awarding inadequate sentences undermines the justice system and fails to respond to...

Compensation To Victim Not Substitute For Punishment In Grave Offences : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Supreme Court decried the trend of High Courts reducing the prison sentence by hiking the fine amount.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Compensation To Victim Not Substitute For Punishment In Grave Offences : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Supreme Court decried the trend of High Courts reducing the prison sentence by hiking the fine amount.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers