In a recent judgment dated 27 February 2015 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Pal, the Supreme Court has held that in cases where the accused is unable to pay compensation to the victim or his/her heirs, that same amount of compensation, which is awarded by the Court, must be paid by the State in accordance with the provisions of S. 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. This judgement was delivered by a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, and it reads as follows “We are also of the view that where the accused is unable to pay adequate compensation to the victim or his heir, the Court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 357A against the State from the funds available under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under the said Section.”
In this case, Court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the accused and 3 lakhs to be paid by the State. This was a case where a young girl of about 20 years died after being struck by a tanker, due to rash and negligent driving. The driver of the tanker stated in his defence that it was a difficult terrain to drive on and he was driving uphill and thus the tanker was not in speed and it was not rash and negligent driving and hence the case must be considered differently. He also stated that he was a poor man and won’t be able to pay a big amount as compensation. On this the Court further observed “In case the Respondent fails to pay any part of the compensation, that part of the compensation will also be paid by the State so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards compensation.”
This judgment clearly brings out the intention of the court which has tried to put more emphasis on the compensatory aspect in a criminal case. It says that the victim must not be put to further suffering due to the poor economic conditions of the accused. This judgment also strengthens the concept of a welfare state, and thus shifts the burden to the State, for compensating the victim, if the accused is not able to properly compensate the victim or his/her family.
This case had come in appeal from the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, wherein the High Court had imposed a fine of Rs. 40,000 and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside, however a further observation was made stating that in case of failure of payment of the above fine, the sentence awarded by the trial court shall revive. The Supreme Court found the sum of Rs. 40,000 as inadequate compensation for the loss of life of a 20 year old girl, and thus ordered a compensation of a total sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the family of the victim.
It may be pertinent to point out that Section 357A was introduced in 2009 by way of an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section brings about a Victim Compensation Scheme, which is to be carried out by the State Government in consultation with the Central Government. It reads as follows:
“357A. Victim compensation scheme. – (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) 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.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.”
Even before this case, there have been various judgements which have emphasised the importance of compensating the victim or his/her family. This judgement has gone one step further to say that, if the compensation ordered to be paid by the accused, cannot be paid by the accused due to his/her poverty, the same amount shall be payable by the State and the mere fact of inability of the accused to pay the compensation shall not come in the way of the victim being compensated.
Full judgment in the above case can be seen here.
