Breaking- Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C Is A Substantive Provision; Victims Entitled To Compensation Even For Crimes That Occurred Prior To Its Enactment: Kerala High Court

In a landmark Judgment the Kerala High Court last week held that the provisions in Section 357A(1)(4)&(5) Cr.P.C are substantive in character and the victims under Section 357A(4) of the Cr.P.C. are entitled to claim compensation for incidents that occurred "even prior to the coming into force of the said provision." Importantly, the Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled, "By giving the benefit to victims under Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C., for crimes that occurred prior to 31.12.2009, the statutory provision is not given retrospective effect, and instead a prospective benefit is given based on an antecedent fact." [NOTE: The Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008, apart from introducing a definition for the term 'victim' in Section 2(wa), inserted a new provision as Section 357A to the Cr.P.C and this provision is related to concept of rehabilitation of the victim. While the compensation payable under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is punitive in nature, the compensation awarded under Section 357A is rehabilitative. The amended provisions do not mention anywhere that the amendment is prospective or even retrospective in character.] The question before the Court Would the victim, of a crime that occurred prior to 31.12.2009, be entitled to claim compensation under Section 357A (4) of the Cr. P.C i.e., is the provision retrospective or prospective in its application? In the quest to ascertain whether Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C applies to offences that occurred prior to 31.12.2009, the Court had to identify whether the provision is substantive or procedural (we will under this in the coming paragraphs).Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C reads, Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. Facts in brief Respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of one late Sri.Sivadas who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26-03-2008. Though a crime was registered by the Police, the accused could not be identified or traced and the trial has not taken place. In 2013, the legal heirs applied to the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha, seeking compensation from the State under Section 357A(4) CrPC. An enquiry, as contemplated under Section 357A(5) Cr.P.C, was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted on 12-09-2013 which considered the circumstances, and concuded that an amount of Rs.3,03,000/- was sufficient compensation that could be awarded to the dependents of late Sri.Sivadas. On the above basis, the State of Kerala was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,03,000/- to the dependents of late Sivadas under Section 357A(5) of the Cr.P.C. The State of Kerala challenged this Order before the Kerala HC. Controversy before the Court and the Arguments put forth The Senior Government Pleader argued that the direction to the State to pay compensation to the dependents of a victim under Section 357A(4)&(5) of the Cr.P.C., for a crime that occurred on 26-03-2008, relying upon an amended provision, brought into effect only on 31.12.2009, and based on an application of the year 2013, is wholly unfair and contrary to the statutory prescription. It was also contended by the State that Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C couldn't be given a retrospective operation as the financial implication of such an interpretation would be so enormous upon the Government, that it will crumble the economic planning of the State. On the other hand, the counsel for respondents 2 to 4 (dependents), argued that the provision applies to past occurrences of crime also and that the concept of Section 357A is akin to a joint tortfeasor under the civil law, and the legislative attempt by bringing in Section 357A Cr.P.C. was to make State also a joint tortfeasor, in a limited manner. It was also argued that the concept of rehabilitation of the victim is not a new right that was brought in by Section 357A Cr.P.C., but it is a right that was always inherent under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Court's Observations The Court, in its Judgment observed that the Criminal jurisprudence, has always been accused centric, however, "with the advent of the philosophy of victim compensation, with its avowed purpose not to award damages analogous to those in cases of tortious liability, but to give solace, by way of compensation out of the public purse, for the injury sustained, whether the offender had been brought to trial or not, a new stakeholder, in the criminal law, was ushered in." The Court also noted that the State has a humanitarian responsibility to assist crime victims and also that the assistance is provided because of the social conscience of its citizens and as a symbolic act of compassion. Importantly, the Court held that...

Breaking- Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C Is A Substantive Provision; Victims Entitled To Compensation Even For Crimes That Occurred Prior To Its Enactment: Kerala High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Breaking- Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C Is A Substantive Provision; Victims Entitled To Compensation Even For Crimes That Occurred Prior To Its Enactment: Kerala High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers