‘Catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration’: Apex Court highlights how purpose of criminal proceedings will be defeated if payment of compensation becomes a consideration for diluting sentence
Justices J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra [09-05-2024]

Read Order: Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat[SC- Criminal Appeal Nos 2481-2482 of 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 15, 2024: The Supreme Court has recently observed that the Gujarat High Court having upheld the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC so far as the two convicts were concerned, and having reduced the sentence from 5-year rigorous imprisonment to 4-year rigorous imprisonment, could not have further diluted the order of sentence by asking the accused persons to pay compensation.

The appellant (original first informant-complainant) lodged a First Information for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 323, 325, 506(2), 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The FIR was lodged against five accused persons. The respondents before this Court are the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were the only two named in the FIR, whereas three were not named. The respondents herein ultimately were put to trial for the offence punishable under various provision of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The respondents were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs 5,000 each. The trial court also convicted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, they came to be sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs 1,000/-. The original accused Nos 3, 4, and 5, who were not named in the FIR came to be acquitted by the trial court.

Against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, the respondents herein went in appeal before the High Court. These two appeals, came to be preferred by the appellant herein, one for enhancement of sentence and the connected appeal against the order of acquittal so far as the original accused Nos 3 to 5 were concerned. The High Court heard in all five appeals, two filed by the appellant herein, two filed by the respondents and the fifth appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat. The acquittal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat was against the original accused Nos 3 to 5. The High Court disposed of all the five appeals by a common judgment. 

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra took note of the fact that the sentence of five years’ imprisonment as imposed by the trial court came to be reduced to four years. The High Court further held that if an amount of Rs 2.50 lakh is paid by each of the two respondents before it, then the respondents need not undergo even the four years’ of sentence as reduced by the High Court.

The counsel for the complainant submitted that the amount of compensation which was awarded to the victim had nothing to do with the substantive order of sentence which the court imposes upon holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. It was pleaded that the impugned judgment of the High Court be set aside and the respondents be asked to undergo sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Referring to Section 357 of the CrPC which gives the power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused, the Bench said, “Time and again this Court has reiterated that it is an important provision but courts seldom invoke the same. It empowers the court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused.”

The Bench was of the opinion that the High Court having upheld the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC so far as the two respondents herein are concerned and having reduced the sentence from five years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment could not have further diluted the order of sentence by asking the accused persons to pay compensation. “In other words, the High Court having once affirmed the conviction and awarded sentence of four years could not have further in lieu of the same reduced it by ordering compensation. To this extent, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court fell into error”, it added.

The Bench further explained that the provision of Section 357 recognizes the aforesaid and is victim centric in nature. It has nothing to do with the convict or the sentence passed. The spotlight is on the victim only. “Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration or a ground for reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused as victim compensation is not a punitive measure and only restitutory in nature and thus, has no bearing with the sentence that has been passed which is punitive in nature”, the Bench held.

The Bench made it clear that where an accused is directed to pay compensation to victims, the same is not meant as punishment or atonement of the convict but rather as a step towards reparation to the victims who have suffered from the offence committed by the convict.

“If payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then the same will have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration. It will result in criminals with a purse full of money to buy their way out of justice, defeating the very purpose of criminal proceedings”, it said.

Considering the fact that a period of twelve years has elapsed and when the respondents (original convicts) had already deposited the amount of Rs 5 lakh, the Bench wasn't inclined to direct the respondents to undergo further sentence of four years. However, the Top Court directed each of the respondents to deposit a further sum of Rs 5 lakh, i.e. in all Rs 10 lakh, in addition to what they had already deposited before the trial court within a period of eight weeks. The Bench also asked the trial court to disburse the entire amount of Rs 15 lakh to the appellant (original complainant) after proper identification.