Apex Court on Vicitm Compensation-It is the duty of the Courts, on taking cognizance of a criminal offence, to ascertain whether there is tangible material to show commission of crime, whether the victim is identifiable and whether the victim of crime needs immediate financial relief, thereby granting interim compensation subject to final compensation being determined later.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2012

SURESH & ANR.

..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

..... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J

 Para 46,

46. The amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure brought about in 2008 focused heavily on the rights of victims in a criminal trial, particularly in trials relating to sexual offences. Though the 2008

amendments left Section 357 unchanged, they introduced Section 357A under which the Court is empowered to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim in such cases where "the compensation awarded Under Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation,

or where the case ends in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated."

Under this provision, even if the accused is not tried but the

victim needs to be rehabilitated, the victim may request the State

or District Legal Services Authority to award him/her compensation. This provision was introduced due to the recommendations made by the

Law Commission of India in its 152nd and 154th Reports in 1994

and 1996 respectively.

13.

We are informed that 25 out of 29 State

Governments have notified victim compensation

schemes. The schemes specify maximum limit of

compensation and subject to maximum limit, the

discretion to decide the quantum has been left with the

State/District legal authorities. It has been brought to

our notice that even though almost a period of five years

has expired since the enactment of Section 357A, the

award of compensation has not become a rule and

interim compensation, which is very important, is not

being granted by the Courts. It has also been pointed

out that the upper limit of compensation fixed by some of

the States is arbitrarily low and is not in keeping with the

object of the legislation. 

14.

We are of the view that it is the duty of the Courts,

on taking cognizance of a criminal offence, to ascertain

whether there is tangible material to show commission of

crime, whether the victim is identifiable and whether the

3

Page 

37

Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2012

victim of crime needs immediate financial relief. On

being satisfied on an application or on its own motion,

the Court ought to direct grant of interim compensation,

subject to final compensation being determined later.

Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal case

where compensation ought to be given and has not been

given, irrespective of the application by the victim. At

the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of

the Court to advert to the provision and record a finding

whether a case for grant of compensation has been made

out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation and how

much. Award of such compensation can be interim.

Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the

guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other

factors as may be found relevant in the facts and

circumstances of an individual case. We are also of the

view that there is need to consider upward revision in the

scale for compensation and pending such consideration

to adopt the scale notified by the State of Kerala in its

scheme, unless the scale awarded by any other State or

Union Territory is higher. The States of Andhra Pradesh,

Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya and Telangana are directed

to notify their schemes within one month from receipt of copy of this order. We also direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to National Judicial Academy sothat all judicial officers in the country can be imparted requisite training to make the provision operative and meaningful.15.In the present case, the impugned judgment shows that the de facto complainant, PW-2 Raman Anand, filedCriminal Revision No.1477 of 2004 for compensation tothe family members of deceased Devender Chopra andhis son Abhishek Chopra. The same has been dismissedby the High Court without any reason. In fact evenwithout such petition, the High Court ought to haveawarded compensation. There is no reason as to why thevictim family should not be awarded compensation underSection 357-A by the State. Thus, we are of the view thatthe State of Haryana is liable to pay compensation to thefamily of the deceased. We determine the interimcompensation payable for the two deaths to be rupeesten lacs, without prejudice to any other rights orremedies of the victim family in any other proceedings.16.Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, we directthat the widow of Devender Chopra, who is mother ofdeceased Abhishek Chopra representingthefamily of the3Page 39Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2012victim be paid interim compensation of rupees ten lacs.It will be payable by the Haryana State Legal ServicesAuthority within one month from receipt of a copy of thisorder. If the funds are not available for the purpose withthe said authority, the State of Haryana will make suchfunds available within one month from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment and the Legal ServicesAuthority will disburse the compensation within onemonth thereafter.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly...........................................J.[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]